Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Wasn't Hutchinson used to try to ID Kosminski?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If you two keep at it you'll wake up Old Man Menges.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
      If the marginalia is fake, you have to wonder for what purpose it was created. Practical joke? Hopefully to be sold for a profit?

      Anybody else want to way in on a possible motive?

      c.d.
      Neither of the owners, Jim Swanson and his son Neville, ever attempted to sell it, so the profit motive goes out the window, and neither ever struck me as prectical jokers, especially when the joke would have been at the expense of Donald Swanson's reputation. It's also a bit premature to speculate about why someone faked the marginalia when it ha not been established that it is a fake.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        If the marginalia is fake, you have to wonder for what purpose it was created. Practical joke? Hopefully to be sold for a profit?

        Anybody else want to way in on a possible motive?

        c.d.
        To make it a collectors piece which would fetch a high price but of course it doent follow that all the marginalia is not correct, you just need to focus on the last line which reads "Kosminksi was the suspect" and then look at the media history behind the book before it came into Nevill Swansons possession

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          Neither of the owners, Jim Swanson and his son Neville, ever attempted to sell it, so the profit motive goes out the window, and neither ever struck me as prectical jokers, especially when the joke would have been at the expense of Donald Swanson's reputation. It's also a bit premature to speculate about why someone faked the marginalia when it ha not been established that it is a fake.
          But that is also not correct the rights to the book were sold to two Newspapers were they not?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            But that is also not correct the rights to the book were sold to two Newspapers were they not?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            I see what your getting at, any pre revelation financial dealings are going to raise an eyebrow. But....If Neville Swanson wanted a money spinner, what a position he was in! Why not put "Druitt was the suspect", or tie it in with Knights best selling Royals baloney? I mean really, he had access to an unquestionable document with cast iron provenance, if he wanted to go for cash and glory, he could have. Why create a hoax that's really iffy? Again, say the book had some scribbles, nothing too spicy, why spice it up with "Kosminski" and some dodgy ID parade? Keep it simple, sell it for a lump some, job done.
            A newspaper deal is par for the course with these things, it doesn't scream conspiracy, not that it couldn't have been.
            If Nev, (RIP), wanted to make a collector's item and ramp up it's value, he could of. As I say, he had cast iron provenance. Hell, he could have produced the rippers top hat and cape and said his gramps kept them in a cupboard all those years, he was in a unique position to get away it.
            I'm not trying to shoot down your arguments, and I agree totally, the marginalia does not remotely match police procedure of the time, or for that matter, even make sense. But it seems highly plausible that DSS wrote it all the same. It deserves it's place in the annals of Ripperology, and serves as a tiny insight into Donald's recall of events.
            I appreciate that the Marginalia doesn't suit other suspects cases. But it doesn't bolster Kosminskis all that much. Kosminski doesn't bolster Kosminskis case much either.

            And that's why I think Hutch wasn't used to witness Kos, or something...
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Hello Al,

              But it could still be a forgery without any involvement from Neville Swanson could it not?

              c.d.

              Comment


              • As the marginalia was contained in a copy of TLSOMOL, should it be surprising that it concurred [sort of] with SRA's line of thinking? On the face of things, no. The trouble is that SRA was an accomplished liar. He was economical with the truth on a number of occasions, some of which I detailed in my book.

                Additional problems with the marginalia and endpaper notation arise from the fact that it is contained within a copy of TLSOMOL of doubtful provenance, the truth having been pasted over with a 1905 letter from SRA, and the 1910 book passed off to sections of the press as having been a gift to Donald Swanson from SRA.

                There is also the matter of Charles Sandell's unpublished newspaper article for the News of the World—for which Jim Swanson received 750—which does not include the closing line of the endpaper, "Kosminski was the suspect."

                Sandell also asserted that, “The detective [Swanson] took a statement from Israel Schwartz - the only person ever to witness a Ripper murder. Swanson described the statement as reliable.”

                Swanson never described Schwartz's statement as reliable—and it was Abberline who had taken the statement. The comment was lifted from Stephen Knight's 1976 book 'JTR—The Final Solution'—

                "Schwartz's statement, which Swanson described as reliable . . ."

                The marginalia is based upon too many mistruths for it to ever be accepted as genuine.

                A full account is contained within Chapter Eight of Deconstructing Jack [2nd Edition].
                Last edited by Simon Wood; 07-17-2020, 05:56 PM.
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Hello Al,

                  But it could still be a forgery without any involvement from Neville Swanson could it not?

                  c.d.
                  Yeah, absolutely. Who forged it in that case? God knows.
                  Thems the Vagaries.....

                  Comment


                  • Interesting points there Simon. Worth some further musing.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                      I wrote an alaysis of Anderson in Ripperologist some years ago. Goodness knows which issue. Whether or not I'd still agree with all of what I wrote though is open to question. I haven't read it since it was published.
                      Ripperologist 100 February 2009 "Sir Robert Anderson: A Source Analysis"

                      The most detailed assessment of Anderson and the Polish Jew theory I've read to date.

                      Comment


                      • I am convinced now that Schwarz was the witness.

                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But that is also not correct the rights to the book were sold to two Newspapers were they not?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Jim Swanson did not sell the rights to any book, he sold the exclusivity of the story. A different thing altogether. And he sold it for a small amount of money.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                            Ripperologist 100 February 2009 "Sir Robert Anderson: A Source Analysis"

                            The most detailed assessment of Anderson and the Polish Jew theory I've read to date.
                            Thank you.

                            Comment


                            • You'll forgive me for not wanting to get involved in maligning the Swanson family, especially what with Nevill having just died. I'm outta here.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                Hello Al,

                                But it could still be a forgery without any involvement from Neville Swanson could it not?

                                c.d.
                                I dont think for one minute that Nevill Swanson was ever involved in any deception and so I am not speaking ill of the dead.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X