Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  Another relevant pencil annotation which in the book appears to have been written at a later date or dates, and had been written using a different, grey pencil and follows Anderson’s text, “identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him”. This annotation contained the words “also a Jew”, further down the page and added in the left-hand margin is annotated in pencil, “after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London”.

  This last section of the written annotations raises a number of questions. Swanson is clearly stating that after the positive identification and the subsequent incarceration of the suspect who was identified, there were no further murders. How accurate is this statement? Swanson only had sole control over the case until December 1888. However, he was actively involved in the investigation into the later murders of McKenzie and Coles in 1889 and 1891 respectively and as stated above still believed these murders could have been the work of the Ripper. As far as the suspect Aaron Kosminski is concerned he was finally incarcerated in an asylum six days before Frances Coles’ murder so that’s another factor, which in my opinion must rule him out of suspicion.

  As I previously stated when discussing the suspect Aaron Kosminski, there are contradictions between Swanson and Anderson. Swanson wrote that the suspect was identified and then incarcerated, whilst Anderson wrote that the suspect was incarcerated and then identified.

  Furthermore, on February 10th 1895 following a non-fatal knife attack and wounding of another prostitute, Alice Graham, in Whitechapel the police arrested a William Grant Grainger. The police and the press believed that Grainger could have been the Ripper. Up until then the case would appear to have still been open. There had been no official announcement to the contrary.

  Grainger was later convicted of wounding and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. No evidence was ever found to connect him with being Jack the Ripper. This clearly shows that the police were still trying to find Jack the Ripper and had no clues as to his identity even as late as 1895. Swanson was however not directly involved in this investigation as he was suffering from flu with a flu epidemic which was sweeping London at that time.

  That same year out of the blue a story appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette dated 7th May 1895, which reported that Grainger had been identified by the one person whom the police believe, saw the murderer with a woman a few moments before her mutilated body was found. If the witness was Joseph Lawende, he told the police in his original statement that he had only noticed the man’s height, and did not think he would recognize him again. It is therefore curious as to why he was expected to identify him several years later. If it were Israel Schwartz then he only got a partial sighting of a man with Stride, and her body was not mutilated. Could this in fact be the identification procedure later referred to by Anderson and Swanson? There is no information to tell us where or when this identification procedure took place.

  There are concerns over this as there are over the identification procedure Swanson and Anderson refer to. One being the fact that the Grainger offence came under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police and Lawende was a witness in the murder of Eddowes, which came under the jurisdiction of the City Police. Would the Metropolitan Police use a City witness? In practice yes they would, but it appears that if the seaside home identification parade did ever take place then why didn’t the Metropolitan Police also use Lawende the City Police witness?

  At the time the Pall Mall Gazette report was published Swanson who led the original Ripper investigation was interviewed by a reporter from that paper. He poured cold water on the suggestion that Grainger could be the Ripper and stated, “The Whitechapel murders were the work of a man who is now dead”. So this in itself again must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919. If Swanson was correct then why did the police subject Grainger to an identification procedure in an attempt to connect him to at least one Ripper murder?

  Having digressed away from commenting on the marginalia I will now return to that specific topic. Looking at the annotations on the endpaper referred to above they read, “Continuing from page 138. After the suspect had been identified at the seaside home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspects return to his brothers house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect” – D. S. S.

  Having Anderson’s book and other items of Donald Swanson’s come into his possession, James Swanson approached The Sunday Express and The News of The World newspapers in 1981 with the story surrounding the book and its annotations. The News of The World took up the offer and they agreed to pay him £750.00 for the rights to publish Donald Swanson’s story, which included the relevant annotations. James Swanson requested a further £250.00 should a second article ever be published to which they agreed.

  However, for whatever reason The News of The World did not publish the article. The mystery of Jack the Ripper has been of public interest for over 125 years and I would have thought this new disclosure would have been worthy of publication. The main reason to not publish may have been due to the fact that the name Kosminski had already been in the public domain since the early 1960s when the Macnaghten original memorandum was discovered and made public.

  James Swanson waited until 1987 and then The News of The World agreed to rescind the original contract enabling him to then offer the rights to the same book and its annotations to the Telegraph who took up his offer and did publish an article.

  In 1987, following the publication of the marginalia and the revelations contained in it, it was later noticed that on page 138 of the book, which contained the main annotations there was a red line going down the left-hand side of the page. This was later confirmed to have been added by James Swanson in an attempt to highlight the marginalia. This showed that James Swanson on at least one occasion had tampered with the book.

  Having regards to a previous major disclosure which rocked the world of Ripperology, namely the “Diary of Jack the Ripper” and the controversy that there was over that, which still has today divided Ripper researchers, and as this new revelation has surfaced in similar fashion, it is quite clear to see why some researchers at the time remained sceptical and some, including myself, have continued to question the authenticity of the annotations.

  As a result of sceptical comments made by several Ripper researchers, which were also published in the Telegraph article, James Swanson wrote a letter to the newspaper; however this was never published. There is one part of this letter, which is crucial when trying to judge the authenticity of the marginalia. This part reads, “My Grandfather was a highly intelligent man. He was in complete command of all his faculties at the time of his death in 1924 at the age of 76. My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.”

  In staying with the annotations, I like many others have only seen copies. I am no handwriting expert but even to the untrained eye there are many dissimilarities in the notes. It should also be noted that as previously mentioned the part which contains the name Kosminski comes right at the end in the last sentence and is written on the endpage in the book and appears to be out of context with the rest of the annotations.

  Since the discovery of the marginalia two separate handwriting tests have been carried out on the marginalia by two different handwriting experts, neither has been published in their entirety.

  The first examination was carried out in 1988 by Dr. Richard Totty of the Forensic Science Service, who was sent only copies of the marginalia and copies of Swanson’s handwriting to examine by author Paul Begg. So in any event Dr. Totty would not have been able to give a definitive opinion, as he would need the originals for comparison purposes. Dr. Totty did however give a written opinion
based on what he had been asked to examine. The results or a copy of his report in full has never been made public. I have to ask why? Especially as some researchers who suggest the marginalia is totally genuine regularly quote both Dr. Totty’s 1988 examination and a later examination carried out by Dr. Davies from the Forensic Science Service, as conclusive proof. This would turn out to be clearly not the case.

  The second examination was carried out in 2006 by Dr. Davies from The Forensic Science Service who was asked by the Metropolitan Police to examine it after Anderson’s book containing the annotations was donated by Nevill Swanson the current owner to the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard. It would appear that for comparison, samples of Swanson’s known writing in a ledger used by him was also submitted.

  In his 2006 report later published in 2012 in full, Dr. Davies states that there was clear evidence that the writing in the ledger was dated from around the 1870s or the early 1880s. In my opinion hardly suitable to compare with handwriting purported to have been written in 1910 some 30 years later. Set out below is an extract from that report.

  Dr. Davies states:

  “I have noted that these two sets of interest, although both written in pencil, appear to have been written with different pencils. I have further noted that the underline of the words “also a Jew” in the set one entry appears to be in a similar pencil to that used for the set two entries. These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.

  “The writing of these annotations is of reasonable quality although the writing of the set one entry is of slightly better line quality than is the writing of the set two entries. In particular the set two entries showed evidence of occasional tremor, which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism. This may mean that the set two entries were written some time after the set one entry and I am unable to determine any more precisely what the time interval between these entries may have been.”

  The report concludes:

  “I have not found any differences between the known and questioned writings in features that I consider are clearly fundamental structural features of the writing. However, in certain circumstances my findings might occur if Swanson were not the writer of the questions writing. Consequently, my findings do not show unequivocally that Swanson is the writer of the questioned writing but they do support this proposition.

  “I have therefore concluded that there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations in the book “The lighter side of my official life”.

  “If I were able to examine known writings by Swanson that were more nearly contemporary with the questioned writing then I might wish to alter that this conclusion. Such writings would enable me to determine whether or not differences that have attributed to the passage of time between the production of the known and questioned writings are truly caused by this.”

  A press release by the Forensic Science Service dated 11th January 2007 quoted Dr. Davies on his findings: “What was interesting about analysing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

  Having read that report I did not believe Dr. Davies’s report to be conclusive proof that Donald Swanson wrote all of the annotations. However, another forensic test which could and should have been carried out on the marginalia was never done. This test would have been to examine the graphite pencil writings using a carbon dating test. The writing relative to the marginalia has been made with two different colour pencils. A forensic test would likely prove whether the lead from the two different pencils was from the Victorian era or modern-day.

  There are a number of other relevant question marks hanging over this marginalia, which suggest the annotations do not stand up to close scrutiny despite the handwriting tests. These questions have caused many heated debates among Ripper researchers causing some to suggest some or all of the marginalia may not be authentic.

  What can be determined from these facts is that at the very least, the endpaper part relating to Kosminski would appear to have been written at a completely separate time than the rest of the marginalia in the book, which begs the question, why? Why precisely would Swanson, if he was in fact the author of the marginalia, have felt compelled to go back and add it at some later date, and why would Swanson initial his own writing? Anderson’s book wasn’t published until 1910 some twenty-two years after the Ripper crimes ceased.

  As has previously been stated Anderson was the most senior officer involved in the Ripper investigation at the time yet he does not mention Kosminski by name, he simply refers to a Polish Jew. Did he really know or was he simply using what Macnaghten had written in 1894? It should be noted that Macnaghten by reasons of rank would have been in overall charge of Swanson in 1894.

  Anderson would surely have been aware of the Macnaghten memorandum in 1894, some sixteen years before his own book was published. I must again reiterate what Major Henry Smith the head of the City of London Police in 1888, said in his memoirs; he categorically stated that the police at the time had no idea as to the identity of the Ripper. I believe this to be a totally honest statement. In addition one of Anderson’s own officers Detective Inspector Reid who was actively engaged in the murders was quoted in The Morning Advertiser April 23rd 1910. Following the publication of Anderson’s book: “Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

  If Swanson did write all of the marginalia then according to James Swanson he wrote it in 1910 when he was 62 years of age and in good health with no writing impairments, and some twelve years before his death.

  As the marginalia is an interesting document now, and because in my opinion it has never been conclusively proved authentic I felt that in the interest of historical accuracy every attempt should be made to authenticate it or otherwise. If it is all genuine or only in part, it may go some way to totally prove or disprove what is contained in the Macnaghten memorandum. Although that was written in 1894 and the annotations in Anderson’s book could not have been written before 1910 when the book was first published.

  Out of the blue I received a phone call from Nevill Swanson. Word had filtered through to him that I wanted to talk to him regarding the marginalia. In orderly fashion we discussed the marginalia and I voiced my concerns to him to which he listened carefully.

  As far as Dr. Davies’ report was concerned he was happy that it was conclusive enough to suggest Donald Swanson had written all of the annotations in the book. I told him that I did not agree and there was another forensic test, which may prove or disprove its authenticity, along with more advanced handwriting examination techniques. Despite all of this he firmly stated he was not prepared to have the marginalia subjected to any further tests or a new handwriting examination. I also asked if I could have his permission to physically examine
the book and the annotations, a request he also refused.

  All in all since 1987 there have been many ongoing discussions and heated debates amongst Ripper researchers and authors over this marginalia. If it is genuine how important is it to the world of Ripperology? I would suggest the importance isn’t that great. At best it goes in some way to corroborate what Macnaghten wrote in the 1894 memorandum and of course that is now highly contentious. For those researchers who view Sir Robert Anderson as a shining light they will suggest it adds more weight to his memoirs whereby he stated the, “The Ripper was a Polish Jew who was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum”.

  As with many aspects of the Ripper case there are many twists and turns to the case even in this day and age. I sat long and hard thinking about the marginalia. I decided to take matters into my own hand and in an attempt to prove or disprove its authenticity I sent a copy of the marginalia together with a new three-page document written by Donald Swanson, which I had uncovered and was dated 1893, to a handwriting expert Dianne Simpson. It didn’t take her long to come back to me stating that in her opinion there were significant differences between the handwriting of the marginalia and the control sample of Swanson’s handwriting I had provided, suggesting they had not all been written by the same hand. Dianne stated that if she were given permission to examine the original she would be then able to provide a statement to this effect and to positively outline the differences.

  I at once wrote to Nevill Swanson making him aware of my findings with a request for him to either allow Dianne Simpson access to the original or for himself and the authors originally connected to this, to at their own expense commission a new examination by an independent handwriting expert. Sadly my offers and suggestions were refused. I then offered to pay for an independent analysis and the additional forensic tests out of my own pocket, again my offer was declined. I also ascertained that Nevill Swanson was now in possession of additional examples of Donald Swanson’s handwriting from a time period in later years. This I felt was important as Dr. Davies had indicated he might be able to give a definitive answer should he have more recent examples of Donald Swanson’s handwriting to compare. Again Nevill Swanson declined to co-operate.