Kosminskical Thoughts

[erobitha]

Ok pardon my ignorance please and I may be misinterpreting this but are you saying he flat knew who the ripper was but wouldn't say? For instance, there's a killer called the Doodler. He was killer of gay men in the 70's. I won't get all up into that case but there reaches a point where all the reading basically says that they knew who the Doodler was, to this day the case is "unsolved" but more than one source says that the authorities knew who the Doodler was but no one would come forward and testify against him because that would "out" them as gay and cause them issues. The assumption is that they didn't have enough evidence without their testimonies to charge him on their own so it just went cold.
That's what reading what you wrote made me think of. That Swanson knew who the Ripper was but declined to say for this reason or that. But then I could be totally misreading Am I right or could you clarify?

I don't know is the short answer. I don't know why he did that.

No-one has been able to explain adequately why did he leave marginalia notes in one book, with the addition of extra information of the jewish testimony element? Surely if he knew all this already what was the point of the notes? Koz was well dead by then, yet Swanson never spoke about this publicly. Why then and why like that? For whose benefit was it for?

To me it is very strange behaviour. Swanson is arguably the one police office who had access to all information across all key stakeholders.

[Wickerman]

Because a few higher-ups at Scotland Yard had strong suspicions (not hard evidence) and chose not to share with other officers?

I really don't know why certain others would have been kept out of the loop. I've suspected the suspect's family had something to do with limiting the spread of suspicions.

That is precisely the point. If a person is a genuine suspect there is a paperwork procedure that would be followed, and every official at Scotland Yard involved in the murder case will be aware.
Yet all we are left with is individual theories & suspicions, nothing of an official nature. So we can rest assured there never was an official suspect.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Regarding paperwork I would like to think that some form of official reports were made and perhaps survived. If Swanson is to be believed I am sure there would be some kind of report regarding the ID [ Kosminski ], plus the following investigation were he was watched day and night. Abberline remarked that there was a report sent to the HO regarding Druitt. Plus Littlechild remarked there was a large dossier on Tumblety. Granted this may not contain anything regarding suspicions he was Jack, but it could have. Finally Macnaghten says that Ostrog's whereabouts during the rippers reign could never be fully ascertained. This may have just been enquires, but there could also have been at one time an official report on him, since he seems to be regarded as a suspect. None of these reports or whatever we want to call them have [ as far as I am aware ], ever turned up.
Regards Darryl

[clark2710]

I don't know is the short answer. I don't know why he did that.

No-one has been able to explain adequately why did he leave marginalia notes in one book, with the addition of extra information of the jewish testimony element? Surely if he knew all this already what was the point of the notes? Koz was well dead by then, yet Swanson never spoke about this publicly. Why then and why like that? For whose benefit was it for?

To me it is very strange behaviour. Swanson is arguably the one police office who had access to all information across all key stakeholders.

Maybe it wasn't something that he was comfortable speaking about. Maybe to speak his mind, regardless of how true, would piss off certain people he really wasn't in a position to piss off. That or he knew who'd be reading it or picking it up and left it there as a hint or clue or something. But yeah I guess we'll never know

[Ms Diddles]

I don't know is the short answer. I don't know why he did that.

No-one has been able to explain adequately why did he leave marginalia notes in one book, with the addition of extra information of the jewish testimony element? Surely if he knew all this already what was the point of the notes? Koz was well dead by then, yet Swanson never spoke about this publicly. Why then and why like that? For whose benefit was it for?

To me it is very strange behaviour. Swanson is arguably the one police office who had access to all information across all key stakeholders.

You know what, Ero?

I've just realised that in all this time, I've never given a thought to why Swanson felt inclined to write the marginalia.

It's an interesting point that you make.

I love it when I see something on this forum that I've never considered before.

[Scott Nelson]

I've never given a thought to why Swanson felt inclined to write the marginalia.

Also remember he would have been writing to himself. Would there be any reason to lie to himself about anything in the marginalia notes??

[Darryl Kenyon]

You know what, Ero?

I've just realised that in all this time, I've never given a thought to why Swanson felt inclined to write the marginalia.

It's an interesting point that you make.

I love it when I see something on this forum that I've never considered before.

Since Anderson's and Smith's books came out it in the same year, it could have been some kind of private reposte to Henry Smith who in his biography said that the ripper beat him and every other police officer in the capital. And that he had no idea who he was. If Kosminski was watched by City police surely Smith would have known, and perhaps this irked Swanson along with Smith's many criticisms of Anderson regarding who he thought Jack was.

Regards Darryl

[Ms Diddles]

Also remember he would have been writing to himself. Would there be any reason to lie to himself about anything in the marginalia notes??

One would assume not.

I just found it interesting that I'd completely taken the marginalia for granted, and had never considered Swansons motivation in writing it.

It's a strange thing to do.

I make notes and highlight extracts in text books when I'm working on an assignment, but I don't think I'd annotate a friend / colleagues autobiography.

Erobitha's post just gave me a moments pause for thought.

[Ms Diddles]

Since Anderson's and Smith's books came out it in the same year, it could have been some kind of private reposte to Henry Smith who in his biography said that the ripper beat him and every other police officer in the capital. And that he had no idea who he was. If Kosminski was watched by City police surely Smith would have known, and perhaps this irked Swanson along with Smith's many criticisms of Anderson regarding who he thought Jack was.

Regards Darryl

It's as good a motivation as any.

You may be right.

I just find it a strange thing to do, if it was intended for Swanson's eyes only.

[Wickerman]

It's as good a motivation as any.

You may be right.

I just find it a strange thing to do, if it was intended for Swanson's eyes only.

Have you ever made notes on a subject in a book?
I have done, especially with Stewart's Ultimate. Some details I've learned on Casebook I've scribbled in a margin on a relevant page.

All Swanson's marginal notes suggest to me is that he was not personally involved in that part of the investigation. So did not have first hand knowledge of what his boss Anderson may have told him at one point. Those details were not included in the memoir, so Swanson scribbled them in where it was applicable.

If you notice, those marginal notes actually identify the suspect (a Jew, brothers house, Seaside Home, Stepney Workhouse, etc.), whereas Anderson's memoir does not. It's possible Anderson intentionally left all those details out because he did not want to make the suspects name, or any means to identify him, public knowledge, especially when nothing could be proven.
Just for his own reference, Swanson added them to his copy at the relevant point.

[Simon Wood]

Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch on 7th February 1891, but prior to 23rd February 1894, Anderson had made no mention of a "Polish Jew."

So it's a fair bet that Robert Anderson first learned about Kosminski, a "Polish Jew," by reading the Macnaghten Memorandum.

And maybe he passed this on to Swanson.

[Wickerman]

Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch on 7th February 1891, but prior to 23rd February 1894, Anderson had made no mention of a "Polish Jew."

Right, so that's a candidate for the Absence of Evidence argument. Anderson makes no mention of Kozminski being a suspect because it is his own private suspicion, Kozminski failed an I.D. somewhere (ie; Seaside or Seaman's Home). To make any note in writing, by memo or report would not be justified in official circles without evidence.
If insane his suspect can't be interrogated, and can't stand trial, so the police can't be sure.
All Swanson was doing was making a personal note in Anderson's memoir as to who his boss believed was the murderer, and why.

[Simon Wood]

One day, you'll get fed up with making excuses for Robert Anderson.

Stay safe.

[Wickerman]

I think you mistake me for someone else.
I've never had a soft spot for Robert Anderson.
I was trying to point out that the lack of any paperwork by Anderson concerning his suspect prior to 1894 does not mean he could not have held suspicions against Kozminski. We know there was no prime suspect in October 1888 (per Anderson himself), and we do not see any specific efforts after that date to hunt down insane men.
So, it would appear Anderson only adopted Kozminski as his personal suspect long after the murders ceased. Whether he gained the idea from Macnaghten's memorandum is not clear.

Be good.

[erobitha]

According to Pall Mall Gazette in 1895 Swanson believes the suspect was dead. So does that mean he believes it was Druitt or Koz at that time? In his marginalia he is under the impression Koz is long dead.

It is very odd that a the only man who was across all stakeholders should make such strange mistakes in marginalia that he wrote to himself. Swanson is the one officer I’d rely on having all the facts from that time. The motivation for writing the marginalia still baffles me, especially for him to be so wrong with the detail. I strongly believe Anderson was led by Swanson in the first place.

I thought this article was quite interesting:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-andr.html