Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Swanson's Marginalia: Our Perceptions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Magpie View Post
    Excuse me if this has been put forward before, but have the following ever been considered:

    1) That the "difficulty" in arranging the ID parade was talking the witness into attending in the first place? Perhaps the witness felt that he wouldn't be able to recognize or identify the person he saw, and therefore didn't see the point of the exercise?

    2) That the witness honestly didn't recognize Kosminski, but Anderson and/or Swanson didn't believe him and instead assumed that the witness was protecting Kosminski, most likely because of their shared ethnic background?

    3) That maybe someone had already decided that Kosminski was the Ripper and was looking for anything that would rubber-stamp their opinion, and when the witness didn't pan out they simply refused to concede that they could have been wrong and instead chose to blame the witness?

    My apologies if this has already been discussed.
    Hi Magpie,
    Very quickly,

    (a) The difficulty appears to have been in sending the suspect for identification, nothing, apparetly, to do with the witness at all.

    (b) Swanson twice refers to the suspect knowing he'd been identified, which to me, at least, suggests that he may have responded to the witness in some sort of confirmatory way, which may in turn tell us why the police placed such credence in the identification.

    (c) Offhand, it's possible, although (b) above probably mitigate against it.

    Comment


    • #17
      The recent elaborations by SPE over on Casebook ( The Swanson Marginalia Revisited thread) focus more on the handwriting and its authenticity, which I, as someone who has never actually seen the Swanson marginalia in the flesh, am not qualified to comment on.

      Nevertheless,its presence does inspire other avenues of exploration,some of which have appeared on this thread to date.

      Mr. Begg said sometime back:

      but the supposition that neither Anderson nor Swanson were present at the identification and were merely repeating what someone else wrote in a report shows that at least the events described actually took place. Unless, of course, one wants to argue that it was a figment of someone else's imagination which both Anderson and Swanson were gulled into believing.

      Indeed, what is the likelihood of neither man...Anderson or Swanson... witnessing the identification and perhaps accepting the impressions and report that the hypothetical individual who DID drag Witness X to identify Kosminski had?

      A problem with the Swanson marginalia is that...and again,I am just like many others in that I have not seen nor am I a graphologist or artifact examiner...so I am merely approaching this from the viewpoint that the writing IS legitimate and did emanate from Swanson...is that even though the writing may say one thing, its what it doesn't say that might be of equal importance.

      Some of this has been touched on by Mr. B previously....but for the sake of stirring up discussion....

      1. The largest manhunt in London's history...with all the concomitant problems...issues...and effort, such as the arrests of thousands of men and thousands of pounds in capital expenses....and Swanson doesn't mention his first name?

      Argument against: That DSS had no need to write down anything and that the last name of the identified man should suffice us.

      Argument against: Perhaps Swanson forgot his first name.

      Now to you,dear reader...are there questions you have in relation to the Swanson marginalia? Any arguments for or against?
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Paul View Post

        (b) Swanson twice refers to the suspect knowing he'd been identified, which to me, at least, suggests that he may have responded to the witness in some sort of confirmatory way, which may in turn tell us why the police placed such credence in the identification.

        .
        Sorry, I missed this at the time.

        Did the suspect know he'd been identified because the witness looked him in the eye and said "Yep, that's the meshuggah!" or because Swanson or some other police officer said "look, sunshine, we got a witness who says he saw you!"--a ploy with a long a honoured tradition in the crime-solving game, and one that is even protected by legal precedant (at least in North America)?
        "The Men who were not the Man who was not Jack the Ripper!"

        Comment


        • #19
          How,

          There are also alternate explanations that people are unwilling to accept.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Magpie,

            I've mulled over this question many a time and I can't help thinking it must have been an assumption on someone's part that the suspect 'knew' he'd been identified, from whatever his reaction was when faced with the witness. If it was just a case of the suspect being made aware that a witness had identified him, would it not have been worded differently? The inference seems to be that he knew he had been correctly identified as the man seen shortly before a murder was committed.

            Short of the suspect spelling it out: "Oh cripes, you remember me, don't you, from that night when you saw me with (fill in victim's name here)", I'm not sure how it could have been ascertained that he knew he had been correctly fingered.

            There are quite a few possibilities, but if he was just terribly afraid because the witness appeared to recognise him, his fear could have been taken for guilt.

            Ditto if he was startled, or furious, or hysterical or just plain miserable, to find this witness pointing the finger at him. Any negative reaction could have been seen as guilty acknowledgement, or even mutual recognition, as in: "Bugger, it's that man who clocked me with the woman".

            Didn't Anderson pride himself on being able to tell a guilty man from his reactions?

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

            Comment


            • #21
              Maybe it's what Magpie said, but without the element of police bluff. If the police couldn't get the witness to swear to him, and so had to release him, might they not, to try to prevent future murders, have told the suspect that he'd been identified? In that way the suspect would have "known" that he'd been identified.

              Comment


              • #22
                Not to drift too far away from the thread theme...but when SRA stated ( more or less and in different words )that when the witness found out that the fellow was a fellow Jew, he balked at the notion of assisting in the prosecution of the chap. Not that the suspected man could have been prosecuted, of course..

                Finally, I would think the witness could tell that the man being held was of the Jewish persuasion on sight. I've always felt that that would be a given.

                But anyway..back to the thread......nice stuff so far.

                Stan: Extrapolate at some point.. either here or on a parallel thread,por favor.
                To Join JTR Forums :
                Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                Comment


                • #23
                  You could recognize someone as an acquaintance and as a Jew but still not think they were Jack the Ripper. The "recognition" that Anderson and Swanson reported could could have been simply that, and not what they thought it was.

                  Chris
                  Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                  https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                  Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                  Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
                    You could recognize someone as an acquaintance and as a Jew but still not think they were Jack the Ripper. The "recognition" that Anderson and Swanson reported could could have been simply that, and not what they thought it was.

                    Chris
                    Precisely. But as we don't know what form the recognition took it's all speculation.

                    But it does seem an odd observation for Swanson to have made - twice - if it was in response to something obvious, like being touched or pointed out by the witness. And the fact that Swanson mentioned it twice may suggest that it meant something significant to him. As you say, it may not hve meant what Swanson thought it meant, but it seems to have meant something. And, of course, the fact that Swanson mentions it may also suggest that he witnessed it - that he was there!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      Precisely. But as we don't know what form the recognition took it's all speculation.

                      But it does seem an odd observation for Swanson to have made - twice - if it was in response to something obvious, like being touched or pointed out by the witness. And the fact that Swanson mentioned it twice may suggest that it meant something significant to him. As you say, it may not hve meant what Swanson thought it meant, but it seems to have meant something. And, of course, the fact that Swanson mentions it may also suggest that he witnessed it - that he was there!
                      Hi Paul

                      Yes of course you are correct, that this is all in the realm of speculation, going on little or no data.

                      I don't necessarily buy the argument that Swanson or Anderson were there. If the officers who attempted to get the witness to identify the suspect were adamant that there was hint of a recognition that could be sufficient for either official to report it as a fact. However, it could have been the situation where one Jew was afraid for the other Jew. They could have been nodding acquaintances and the witness could have been just afraid to admit anything. I am thinking this might have been the case if both men might have been Eastern European-born Jews and afraid to make a false move because of prior dealings with the Tsarist police in Poland or other Russian-ruled lands. So better not to admit that he did in fact recognize the other man.

                      All the best

                      Chris
                      Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                      https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                      Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                      Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Paul, perhaps it meant what Swanson says - no more murders were committed (or, since the suspect was watched, no more murder attempts were made). The suspect's knowledge of his identification might also, in Swanson's mind, have been the explanation for the suspect's breakdown necessitating his removal under restraint - he could no longer kill.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
                          Hi Paul

                          Yes of course you are correct, that this is all in the realm of speculation, going on little or no data.

                          I don't necessarily buy the argument that Swanson or Anderson where there. If the officers who attempted to get the witness to identify the suspect were adamant that there was hint of a recognition that could be sufficient for either official to report it as a fact. However, it could have been the situation where one Jew was afraid for the other Jew. They could have been nodding acquaintances and the witness could have been just afraid to admit anything. I am thinking this might have been the case if both men might have been Eastern European-born Jews and afraid to make a false move because of prior dealings with the Tsarist police in Poland or other Russian-ruled lands. So better not to admit that he did in fact recognize the other man.

                          All the best

                          Chris
                          Yes, the men conducting the identification could have been impressed by the suspect's reaction on being confronted with the witness.

                          The witness apparently identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, and only afterwards refused to proceed, and his reasons could indeed have been because he didn't want to make waves.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                            Paul, perhaps it meant what Swanson says - no more murders were committed (or, since the suspect was watched, no more murder attempts were made). The suspect's knowledge of his identification might also, in Swanson's mind, have been the explanation for the suspect's breakdown necessitating his removal under restraint - he could no longer kill.
                            Indeed it could. Though mentioning it twice might seem like overkill.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Paul View Post
                              Indeed it could. Though mentioning it twice might seem like overkill.
                              He's writing for himself, and, now being retired, he has all the time in the world to expand upon his thoughts, so he continues on an endpaper, albeit years later (apparently) after making the original notation. So in those expansive circumstances, why not mention it twice? I believe you yourself, Paul, mentioned either in your Ripperologist 100 article or here that the space available for writing marginalia on page 138 is limited.

                              Chris
                              Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                              https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                              Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
                                He's writing for himself, and, now being retired, he has all the time in the world to expand upon his thoughts, so he continues on an endpaper, albeit years later (apparently) after making the original notation. So in those expansive circumstances, why not mention it twice? I believe you yourself, Paul, mentioned either in your Ripperologist 100 article or here that the space available for writing marginalia on page 138 is limited.

                                Chris
                                There's no particuar reason, Chris, just that he did write it wice, which could suggest that he felt it was important and might have been something he witnessed. That's all. The idea that the endpaper notations were written years later after the earlier marginal notes is, as yet, unexplained. I don't know how Dr Davis reached that conclusion other than by the handwriting having deteoriorated, suggesting that some time had passed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X