Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

You mean like not even paying attention to what you're sending in for study, thereby randomly grabbing a completely different memorandum for comparison to somebody else's handwriting?

Certainly not!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, it doesn't look good on the old chap. However, whom amoungst us hasn't made an error or simply made a simple mistake at some time?

The important thing is to own up and take responsibility for your actions and that is what Paul appears to have done.

Pirate

[Monty]

Need a spoon Jeff?

[Jeff Leahy]

Fair enough Stewart. However the FACTS you posted seemed to be indicating one of those three possibilities.

I simply believe in calling a Spade a spade and getting to the bottom of things.

Better out than in.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence?

You mean like not even paying attention to what you're sending in for study, thereby randomly grabbing a completely different memorandum for comparison to somebody else's handwriting?

Certainly not!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Despicable

...
Are you suggesting deliberate deception on the part of Skinner, Fido and Begg?
Are you saying that they failed to follow standard practice or procedure?
Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence? Which seems rather unfair given that their initial examination and conclusion appears to have been, on the whole, held up by Dr Davies. Who simply provides us with further detail. But confirms it was probably written by Swanson
Yours Pirate

This is an absurd and despicable posting. I have merely stated facts. I refuse to have any further communication with you.

[Jeff Leahy]

The point you seem to be making is that Paul Martin and Keith failed to correctly identify the authenticity of the Marginalia. Or at least failed to do so properly.

Paul admitted some time ago on JtRforums that he had not noticed the colour difference. However in his defense it must be noted that no-one else at the time including Martin and Keith raised the point or seemed to notice it either.

Having spoken to Paul about this, again some time ago, my understanding was that they did what they thought correct at the time. One must presume that the examiner was happy to confirm the authenticity via a photocopy or he would not have done so.

You seem to be suggesting that they should have insisted on a full written report and this would be normal procedure or practice in such a situation?

I’m simply unclear what that ‘best practice’ should have been. Are there any written rules or guidelines on the subject?

Or were these guys simply in new and uncharted territory?

As the book at that time belonged to Jim Swanson it may simply not have been possible to undertake the same examination that Dr Davies undertook. I do not know but I am fairly confident in Paul's honesty and integrity.

Are you suggesting deliberate deception on the part of Skinner, Fido and Begg?

Are you saying that they failed to follow standard practice or procedure?

Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence? Which seems rather unfair given that their initial examination and conclusion appears to have been, on the whole, held up by Dr Davies. Who simply provides us with further detail. But confirms it was probably written by Swanson

Yours Pirate

PS: Some others have said that he wouldn't have signed off as 'D.S.S.' but he does so on page 138 of the annotations and he may well have been in the habit of doing so, such a thing is not unknown.

Yes my understanding is that there are other examples of Swanson writing marginalia and this one, while somewhat longer, is not out of keeping.

[Stewart P Evans]

Writings of Swanson

Hi Stewart
Thanks for your reply. But this is not what I meant. I’m aware of the problems within the meaning.
I’m trying to get at something else and probably not expressing myself very well.
What I’m getting at is the wording and style, the use of the words compared to other pieces of marginalia and writing made by Swanson of that period.
So its not so much what is being said, but the way it is being expressed or the language and style that he uses?
You expressed a worry about the end line…
KOSMINSKI was the suspect – D S S
Is this the only example of Swanson doing so? Or do other marginalia draw comparison?
Pirate

I am not sure how "Kosminski was the suspect" can be compared with the marginalia and writings of Swanson of that period.

I seem to recall that I once said that I was always struck by how convenient and succinct that phrase was, appended to the endpaper notes. But that is all I thought and I dismissed the idea and said so to another Ripper authority who was struck by the 'convenience' of the phrase. I also pointed out that 'Kosminski' was one of the suspects listed by Macnaghten in 1894 so there was little doubt that 'Kosminski' was, indeed, the suspect.

Some others have said that he wouldn't have signed off as 'D.S.S.' but he does so on page 138 of the annotations and he may well have been in the habit of doing so, such a thing is not unknown.

[Stewart P Evans]

Professional Historian

...
What you appear to be criticizing is the procedure that was taken. And that should be taken up directly with Martin, Keith and Paul. As I’m not certain what procedure would be followed as 'standard practice' as I’m not a professional Historian.
Pirate

What has 'professional Historian' [sic] got to do with anything. I'm not a professional historian, but I know enough to say that the problems with the writing in the book needed to be checked and commented upon by an expert. This has now been done by Dr. Christopher Davies M.A., D.Phil. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that he's a professional historian - or is he?

[Stewart P Evans]

Properly Examined

As has been agreed, and incidentally discussed with Paul on many occasions, hand writing analysis is not an exact science but qualified expert opinion.
So I think your correct that the inclusion ‘Probably Swansons” would have been more accurate.
One would assume the wording, given the Davis report, has been updated in the new edition of A to Z.
However the wording aside the same basic set of FACTS remain. “The marginalia was Probably written by D S Swanson”
Which rather vindicates ‘Martin Fido’s’ original assessment. Which I assume was based on a number of factors NOT just the fact that Totty had checked the handwriting and told them it was Swanson’s.
What you appear to be criticizing is the procedure that was taken. And that should be taken up directly with Martin, Keith and Paul. As I’m not certain what procedure would be followed as 'standard practice' as I’m not a professional Historian.
Pirate

You really don't get it do you? I don't intend to repeat what has now been said many times.

After all the debate I am sure that the wording in the new A-Z will be different. I have never, myself, said anything other than it was probably written by Swanson. The issues I have raised are about the concerns resulting from the differences I pointed out.

The annotations were not properly examined and the problems noted and addressed when they should have been, i.e. in 1988. I have nothing to 'take up with Martin, Keith and Paul' - it's up to them what they do and how they do it.

Where 'procedure' and 'standard practice' come in isn't the question here. It's more a question of doing things properly - and they weren't done properly. Had the annotations been properly looked at then the problems would have been noted and addressed all those years ago.

The result was that the 'marginalia' enjoyed years of blind acceptance before it was realised that the use of different pencils and the changes in the handwriting had been missed, and these were things that cast a different light on the notes.

[Jeff Leahy]

Bearing in mind that Donald Swanson retired in 1903 and the annotations were not written until, at the earliest, 1910 it is difficult for me to speculate on how Swanson would express himself.

The rear endpaper annotations do seem rather odd, are a bit ungrammatical and contain errors. These have been discussed at length in the past and the problems are well known. They are, to say the least, puzzling.

For an ex-policeman to say of a mental patient that a witness's "evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged..." is very odd.

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London", but what about the Coles murder?

We then have the odd aspects that the suspect was simply released to the custody of his family when he had been 'definitely' identified as Jack the Ripper, that he "was watched by police (City CID) by day & night", and, not least of all, that he died shortly after admission to Colney Hatch (if it was Aaron Kosminski this is obviously wrong).

There is also the 1895 newspaper report that states that Swanson 'believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead.'

All these problems are the reason there is so much debate and they are unlikely to be finally resolved unless some new information crops up that resolves them.

Hi Stewart

Thanks for your reply. But this is not what I meant. I’m aware of the problems within the meaning.

I’m trying to get at something else and probably not expressing myself very well.

What I’m getting at is the wording and style, the use of the words compared to other pieces of marginalia and writing made by Swanson of that period.

So its not so much what is being said, but the way it is being expressed or the language and style that he uses?

You expressed a worry about the end line…

KOSMINSKI was the suspect – D S S

Is this the only example of Swanson doing so? Or do other marginalia draw comparison?

Pirate

[Monty]

Unlike you to deviate Neil...

I think that what you are looking for was a lengthy post (#56) by Martin on 16 January 2006, to be found under 'Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald - 'The 'Swanson Marginalia'.

Yes, most unlike me Stewart....how are the cats?

Seriously, many thanks for the reference.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

As has been agreed, and incidentally discussed with Paul on many occasions, hand writing analysis is not an exact science but qualified expert opinion.

So I think your correct that the inclusion ‘Probably Swansons” would have been more accurate.

One would assume the wording, given the Davis report, has been updated in the new edition of A to Z.

However the wording aside the same basic set of FACTS remain. “The marginalia was Probably written by D S Swanson”

Which rather vindicates ‘Martin Fido’s’ original assessment. Which I assume was based on a number of factors NOT just the fact that Totty had checked the handwriting and told them it was Swanson’s.

What you appear to be criticizing is the procedure that was taken. And that should be taken up directly with Martin, Keith and Paul. As I’m not certain what procedure would be followed as 'standard practice' as I’m not a professional Historian.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

...
I am however interest in your view about the wording in the end notes. The difference in the pencil colour and slight hand writing differences aside.
Is the phrasing of the words as you would have expected DS Swanson to have expressed himself? Given his style in other marginalia?
Pirate

Bearing in mind that Donald Swanson retired in 1903 and the annotations were not written until, at the earliest, 1910 it is difficult for me to speculate on how Swanson would express himself.

The rear endpaper annotations do seem rather odd, are a bit ungrammatical and contain errors. These have been discussed at length in the past and the problems are well known. They are, to say the least, puzzling.

For an ex-policeman to say of a mental patient that a witness's "evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged..." is very odd.

"And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London", but what about the Coles murder?

We then have the odd aspects that the suspect was simply released to the custody of his family when he had been 'definitely' identified as Jack the Ripper, that he "was watched by police (City CID) by day & night", and, not least of all, that he died shortly after admission to Colney Hatch (if it was Aaron Kosminski this is obviously wrong).

There is also the 1895 newspaper report that states that Swanson 'believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead.'

All these problems are the reason there is so much debate and they are unlikely to be finally resolved unless some new information crops up that resolves them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Missed The Point

Which still could be referenced to as a report. Because that is what it was doing. Reporting.
However it needn’t be an ‘Official’ report of specific size, format and content.
However I think I’m drifting into exactly the sort of semantic argument I despise, so I will simply drop the subject as I have never heard mention the sort of document you describe. And clearly my intention is not and has never been to antagonize you.
...
Pirate

Yet again you have totally missed the point - and the last thing this is, is a semantic argument. The A-Z, from the first edition on, printed the statement, with regard to a stated doubt (by Paul Harrison) that the 'Swanson Marginalia' might not be genuine, that "Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner." That is a clear enough statement - is it not?

As both Chris and I have both pointed out, such an emphatic and precise conclusion is simply not possible, for the reasons stated. And, by implication, the A-Z entry infers that a proper examination of the annotations has been made. Does it not? Otherwise how could so emphatic a conclusion be reached? Indeed, for many years I felt there was no need for me to take a look at the 'marginalia' as it had received a clean bill of health from the A-Z authors and the Home Office document examiner.

Imagine, then, my surprise when I finally got to see the actual annotations for myself and immediately noted the aforedescribed problems, i.e. the difference pencil used and the variance in the handwriting. Quite naturally I wondered why this hadn't been spotted before, especially in view of the huge importance others had accorded to these scribbled notes. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem here.

And, I repeat, it's the difference between a personal letter giving an opinion and a proper examination and conclusion being detailed in a proper report, after a proper examination of original documents.

[Jeff Leahy]

I

But, of course, I do accept that a proper report may not have been compiled and that the said examiner was merely giving his opinion in a letter.

Which still could be referenced to as a report. Because that is what it was doing. Reporting.

However it needn’t be an ‘Official’ report of specific size, format and content.

However I think I’m drifting into exactly the sort of semantic argument I despise, so I will simply drop the subject as I have never heard mention the sort of document you describe. And clearly my intention is not and has never been to antagonize you.

I am however interest in your view about the wording in the end notes. The difference in the pencil colour and slight hand writing differences aside.

Is the phrasing of the words as you would have expected DS Swanson to have expressed himself? Given his style in other marginalia?

Pirate