Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

[Paul]

You, nor anyone else cannot prove that it was not part of the original police file on the murders.

You nor I cannot prove where it originated from as you say, but having regards to its content, and the handwriting in some cases being different, and with it having the police logo it is safe to say that that it was penned at Scotland yard while Swanson was still a serving police officer. How it came to be amongst his personal papers can be nothing more than speculation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You seem to be missing the point, Trevor. You stated as a matter of fact that it was “the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file", but it wasn't and there is no reason to think that it ever was, and, as Chris has said, you obviously had no idea where the paper had come from.

Where it was penned, at Scotland Yard or a train yard is irrelevant. As for the logo, the paper is embossed. I stand to be corrected, but embossing is usually done to before paper is used and therefore does no signify that this sheet was used in an official capacity. But, as said, it is clear you didn;t know where the paper came from and assumed it was the front sheet of a Ripper file. It's no big deal, but seems to be to you.

[Paul]

I suppose we should be thankful that you aren't claiming it was faked by the Swanson family ...

For all our sakes, Chris, don't give him ideas!

[Trevor Marriott]

You seem to be missing the point, Trevor. You stated as a matter of fact that it was “the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file", but it wasn't and there is no reason to think that it ever was, and, as Chris has said, you obviously had no idea where the paper had come from.

Where it was penned, at Scotland Yard or a train yard is irrelevant. As for the logo, the paper is embossed. I stand to be corrected, but embossing is usually done to before paper is used and therefore does no signify that this sheet was used in an official capacity. But, as said, it is clear you didn;t know where the paper came from and assumed it was the front sheet of a Ripper file. It's no big deal, but seems to be to you.

Its no big deal and it cannot be proved to not have come from the official file to which Swanson had full access to.



So lets leave it at that, I am losing the will to live with this triviality.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gary Barnett]

I bought myself a copy of Scotland Yard Investigates recently. An image of the list appears in there and the caption reads, This contemporary list was retained by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson.

I had assumed that retained was a euphemism for pinched from his employers.

[Chris Phillips]

At what point in its life might it have got the ‘Metropolitan Police Office’ stamp/seal?

In his recent book on Swanson, Adam Wood notes that only the comments on days of the week and the Coles entry are in Swanson's hand, and concludes that the list was originally prepared by a secretary. I presume at one time it was kept in one of the files at Scotland Yard.

This and the instruction putting the administration of the case into Swanson's hands were found among the family papers by Jim Swanson in 1987, soon after he had offered the "marginalia" to the Daily Telegraph.

[Gary Barnett]

In his recent book on Swanson, Adam Wood notes that only the comments on days of the week and the Coles entry are in Swanson's hand, and concludes that the list was originally prepared by a secretary. I presume at one time it was kept in one of the files at Scotland Yard.

This and the instruction putting the administration of the case into Swanson's hands were found among the family papers by Jim Swanson in 1987, soon after he had offered the "marginalia" to the Daily Telegraph.

Thanks, Chris.

[Paul]

Its no big deal and it cannot be proved to not have come from the official file to which Swanson had full access to.

So lets leave it at that, I am losing the will to live with this triviality.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I said it was no big deal, Trevor, but, as you seem unable or unwilling to admit that it was not “the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file", it's a trivia that you seem to find very important. I'm sure it's making everyone lose the will to live.

[Trevor Marriott]

I said it was no big deal, Trevor, but, as you seem unable or unwilling to admit that it was not “the main front sheet from the Scotland Yard Ripper file", it's a trivia that you seem to find very important. I'm sure it's making everyone lose the will to live.

Well seeing as you lost that argument I will return to the topic of this thread and Anderson who you seem to believe can do no wrong, and is incapable of telling lies.

Can Anderson be regarded as a credible witness on this issue of a Jewish suspect, and why is there no mention of this mythical Jewish suspect by those working on the ground. i.e. Reid, Abberline, and Dew?

The trouble with Ripperology is that there are far to many people who readily accept and believe what they read, or are told by those who think they know.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris Phillips]

Well seeing as you lost that argument ...


The trouble with Ripperology is that there are far to many people who readily accept and believe what they read, or are told by those who think they know.

[my emphasis]



The irony is overpowering.


Really, sometimes I think this is a spoof account set up by someone to discredit the real Trevor Marriott, who is oblivious of the discussions here!

[Trevor Marriott]

[my emphasis]

The irony is overpowering.

Really, sometimes I think this is a spoof account set up by someone to discredit the real Trevor Marriott, who is oblivious of the discussions here!

I feel the same way when I see some of the replies, which always seem to result in personal attacks, which are used to deflect away from the topic in question as is seen here!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Edward Stow]

The file note that was found among Donald Swanson's papers was pretty obviously purloined by him from the official files.
There is a strange reluctance in some quarters to believe anything ill of him.
Whether the note was a header sheet or an aide memoire of some sort is of limited significance I think.
The sheet is of great interest however - which is why I used it throughout my (excellent) Whitechapel Murder mini series within my YouTube Channel 'The House of Lechmere' (that is a plug).
The 'Time' given is always when the victim was last seen by a known witness.

For Martha Tabram it is 11.45 pm.
This categorically proves that he police believed Peary Poll.
The recent infatuation with Pearly Poll being disbelieved can be dismissed completely. That is also why they went at lengths to get her to testify at the inquest.
Being believed is not however the same as being a reliable or good witness for identification purposes.

As for the errors in Reid's letter...

Where is says the body (i.e. Druitt) was found in the river before the first of the murders was committed - I would suggest that was a slip of the pen and he meant before the last of the murders was committed. People do commit typos! I think Reid knew the main body of Ripper murders happened in 1888.

On the Jewish suspect, of course Pizer had been a suspect briefly in early September 1888, but he had been publicly cleared. So I think Reid dismissed this instance, rather than add an explanatory paragraph to his letter which would have obfuscated things to the general reader, even if he might have satisfied later generations of 'Ripperologists' with his exactitude.
Neither he nor the police were responsible for other press speculations.

Likewise the comment that no man was seen in company with the women remark is, I would suggest, a reference to no sure identification was ever available immediately prior to the murder. The soldiers with Tabram were some time earlier, the men supposedly seen with Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly may or may not have actually been with the victim. I think Reid just said, in short hand, that none of these sightings are reliable. But again he didn't spell that out at length in a such a way to satisfy later generations of 'Ripperologists'.
/

[Chris Phillips]

The file note that was found among Donald Swanson's papers was pretty obviously purloined by him from the official files.
There is a strange reluctance in some quarters to believe anything ill of him.
Whether the note was a header sheet or an aide memoire of some sort is of limited significance I think.
The sheet is of great interest however - which is why I used it throughout my (excellent) Whitechapel Murder mini series within my YouTube Channel 'The House of Lechmere' (that is a plug).
The 'Time' given is always when the victim was last seen by a known witness.

For Martha Tabram it is 11.45 pm.
This categorically proves that he police believed Peary Poll.
The recent infatuation with Pearly Poll being disbelieved can be dismissed completely. That is also why they went at lengths to get her to testify at the inquest.
Being believed is not however the same as being a reliable or good witness for identification purposes.

As for the errors in Reid's letter...

Where is says the body (i.e. Druitt) was found in the river before the first of the murders was committed - I would suggest that was a slip of the pen and he meant before the last of the murders was committed. People do commit typos! I think Reid knew the main body of Ripper murders happened in 1888.

On the Jewish suspect, of course Pizer had been a suspect briefly in early September 1888, but he had been publicly cleared. So I think Reid dismissed this instance, rather than add an explanatory paragraph to his letter which would have obfuscated things to the general reader, even if he might have satisfied later generations of 'Ripperologists' with his exactitude.
Neither he nor the police were responsible for other press speculations.

Likewise the comment that no man was seen in company with the women remark is, I would suggest, a reference to no sure identification was ever available immediately prior to the murder. The soldiers with Tabram were some time earlier, the men supposedly seen with Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly may or may not have actually been with the victim. I think Reid just said, in short hand, that none of these sightings are reliable. But again he didn't spell that out at length in a such a way to satisfy later generations of 'Ripperologists'.

And perhaps something similar for the incorrect statement about body parts?


I think the main problem with this kind of special pleading is that if someone was so prone to writing one thing while thinking another, it becomes impossible to conclude anything from their statements unless they can be independently checked.

[Paul]

The file note that was found among Donald Swanson's papers was pretty obviously purloined by him from the official files.



There is a strange reluctance in some quarters to believe anything ill of him.

It is of no great importance, but as a matter of interest, why do you think it was "obviously purloined"? When I first saw this page about thre decades ago, I assumed someone had used the embossed headed paper because there was a plentiful supply and didn't mean the list was for official use. I can't see and don't immediately recall other markings on the paper to suggest that it had ever been in any files, so I concluded that it was an aide memoire and Swanson's personal possession.

I don't think there is a reluctance to believe anything ill of Swanson, just a reluctance to attribute anything to anyone without reasonable support rather than surmise.

[Edward Stow]

The body parts are open to interpretation.

The issues I highlighted are hardly special pleading and more a common sense evaluation.

[Edward Stow]

Paul
I think it was fairly obviously purloined as it is in different handwriting so was not his personal note.
There is also a hole in the top left, like the page had been torn from a file.
And it was embossed and so on official stationery. Why would he do a personal note on official stationery?
Conversely is it likely Swanson took home with him quantities of official notepaper to make notes for his private edification?

My immediate thought on seeing the different handwriting, the torn corner and the embossed header was: 'what a naughty fellow he was.'
Different individuals obviously react differently to the evidence in front of their eyes.

Indeed it isn't of great importance in the scheme of things (but then again neither is 'Ripperology') but it is almost certainly (of course we cannot be 100% sure) a instance of a policeman pilfering from the official files. Which is perhaps slightly interesting.

Also I alluded to the prevailing opinion in some quarters that Swanson's faeses don't stink. The reluctance to think ill of him is, I would suggest, a symptom of that - even for the minor transgression of purloining a file note.
As yet I haven't got Adam's book so I don't know what his conclusion is or even if he offers an opinion.