The Kosminski theorists have done a good job of appropriating Donald Swanson, and perhaps this is justified. In their view, they 'own' him.
Yet, it seems to me that it is possible to argue that the so-called Swanson marginalia is merely 'exegesis' and not endorsement. In other words, Anderson's writing is rather vague and cryptic, and Swanson is merely 'fleshing it out' with the appropriate data, since he, obviously, was there at the time, and must have discussed, probed,and argued these circumstances with Anderson on dozens of occasions. In the marginalia, he is giving his old chief's view of things.
Yes, it could be wholehearted endorsement--probably--but, for all I know, had Swanson owned a copy of Days of My Years, he could have scribbled similarly positive sounding statements in the margins of the Druitt chapter.
Thus, the assumption being made about Swanson's 1895 statement that the Ripper was a man now 'dead,' is that he is referring to the same suspect named 15+ years later in the marginalia. But 1895 is only a year after MM's famous memo, when the 'drowned doctor' became the party line. It could be a reference to Druitt, who, for whatever reason, Swanson later dropped.