Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Chris]

Jeff

Just so long as we agree that you are not in a position to tell us - as you tried to do yesterday - that the difference between the two expert opinions on the marginalia was that Davies qualified his opinion by adding the word "probably".

All you can comment on is the difference between the brief comments about the Davies report in the press release, and the even briefer comment in the "A to Z" that "the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's" by Totty.

The point is that it isn't humanly possible for anyone to identify handwriting with certainty. All document examiners can deal in is probability. As I've pointed out before, typically they use a nine-point scale to express the probability of two samples having been written by the same person. If Totty gave anything but the most informal, off-the-cuff opinion, he must have spoken in terms of the probability - not the certainty - of the writing being Swanson's, because no professional could do otherwise.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

The point is that it isn't humanly possible for anyone to identify handwriting with certainty. All document examiners can deal in is probability. As I've pointed out before, typically they use a nine-point scale to express the probability of two samples having been written by the same person. If Totty gave anything but the most informal, off-the-cuff opinion, he must have spoken in terms of the probability - not the certainty - of the writing being Swanson's, because no professional could do otherwise.

Ah now we are getting somewhere. Yes exactly.

Hand writing analysis is not an exact science but qualified opinion. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread the word ‘Expert’ is in itself a rather over used and a loaded expression.

I assume that both Totty and Davis spend most of their working career studying and looking at hand writing samples, and its is their experience that we are putting our trust in. I have no idea what makes them good or bad. Getting it wrong 1 out of 10? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?

But one must assume that there is an element of human error that must be considered so the prefix ‘probably’ seems a given whether we like it or not. Which is why I used the word probably in both cases. However the actual word itself only physically appears in ‘what is known’ about the Davis report’ while the word ‘probably’ doesn’t appear to have been used, as we have no mention of it, in ‘what is known’ in the Totty analysis.

But as you say ‘Hand writing analysis’ is not an exact science and therefore it is a given to presume ‘that in their expert opinion’ the writing is ‘PROBABLY’ Swanson’s.

And the BIG PICTURE here is very simple.

Two Handwriting experts have studied the Marginalia and conclude…using slightly different wording, that it matches D S Swanson.

The second made a series of caveat’s to cover himself over minor differences in the endnotes.

However you wish to look at it the most important and over riding factor is the fact that both experts put their expert opinion towards Swanson having written the Marginalia., in all probability.

Of course the exact wording by Davis and Totty have not been published but we have a fairly good idea what they concluded. And no amount of squirming or weaseled words changes the basic BIGGER PICTURE.

And it is my OPINION that if another expert examiner is contacted and given access, he will probably conclude that the marginalia is ‘PROBABLY WRITTEN BY D. S. SWANSON” and I am more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet on that PROBABILITY with anyone who thinks they will conclude differently.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Essentially I agree with that - except where you say "the word ‘probably’ doesn’t appear to have been used, as we have no mention of it, in ‘what is known’ in the Totty analysis".

But "what is known" in this case amounts to only half a dozen or so words in the "A to Z". There's no way we can conclude from that that Totty didn't use some word such as "probably" or "in all likelihood" or whatever. Indeed, if he was giving any sort of considered opinion, Totty must have expressed it as a probability rather than a certainty, because that is how document examiners do express their opinions, and there is no way he could be certain. No one could.

[Jeff Leahy]

Again your nit picking slightly.

The word probably is ‘physically used in the press report on the Davis report. Where as the A to Z does not ‘Physically’ include the word ‘probably’.

The fact that Totty could only give an expert opinion based on his experience and thus a ‘probably’, well that is agreed as a given.


One must assume that these guys are called in court to give their expert opinion in legal cases and that is how they are being defined as Experts? I don’t know if there is an official explanation of the word Expert or what qualifies.


But on the whole we appear in concordance.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Its quite extraordinary , given the history of hoaxes and skulduggery that have dogged ripperology from the start,for anyone to expect us to believe the authenticity of some "suddenly discovered" marginalia and endnotes,which the owners claimed identified Jack the Ripper, no less! Really?
Moreover,this marginalia together with its curiously "mismatching "end notes somehow lay sleeping for nearly 100 years,only to miraculously "re- surface" in 1988 to happen to fortuitously coincide with the centenary of the 1888 Whitechapel murders .
And apparently,this "centenary find", consists of marginalia written in one pencil colour ,allegedly written by Swanson, followed by "endnotes" written in a fairly "mismatching" hand and with a definitely "mismatching" pencil!
Get real Jeff----please.

[Chris]

Its quite extraordinary , given the history of hoaxes and skulduggery that have dogged ripperology from the start,for anyone to expect us to believe the authenticity of some "suddenly discovered" marginalia and endnotes,which the owners claimed identified Jack the Ripper, no less! Really?
Moreover,this marginalia together with its curiously "mismatching "end notes somehow lay sleeping for nearly 100 years,only to miraculously "re- surface" in 1988 to happen to fortuitously coincide with the centenary of the 1888 Whitechapel murders .
And apparently,this "centenary find", consists of marginalia written in one pencil colour ,allegedly written by Swanson, followed by "endnotes" written in a fairly "mismatching" hand and with a definitely "mismatching" pencil!

But apparently the annotations were discovered, and the rights sold to the News of the World, in 1981, several years before the centenary and - perhaps more significantly - before Martin Fido's discovery of the records relating to Aaron Kozminski:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=73807&postcount=5

[Natalie Severn]

That throws a slightly different light on the matter Chris.However,the mismatch of both pencil lead and letter slant ,with the purple leaded end notes supposedly "identifying the ripper" suggests to me a bit of hanky panky having taken place of one kind or another!
Nor should it have come to anyone in the Swanson"s family as any kind of great surprise that Kosminski"s name was known to Swanson -a number of his relatives may well have read Anderson"s 1910 book,"The Lighter Side of My Life"----and he was Swanson's boss for many years after all.
So yes I guess Kosminski was held onto as a suspect by Anderson and Swanson for both of whom the mere thought of a person they referred to as a "low class Polish Jew" and who they knew had indulged in "self abuse" was sufficient to ring loud alarm bells.
This alleged masturbatory practise is noted on Kosminski"s Colney Hatch admittance forms and was very clearly a complete anathema to all three of these senior Victorian policemen and very likely appeared to them a sufficient crime in itself to warrant swift admission to the loony bin and thereafter to have become a seriously strong suspect for Jack the Ripper.
And lets not forget either that Kosminski was actually NAMED by Macnaghten in 1894 ie long before the discovery of the marginalia by Swanson"s grandson in 1981 and I believe the name is said to have been circulating among certain of Macnaghten"s friends such as George Sims etc. In fact poor old Kosminski was even described in 1894 by Macnaghten as having "strong homicidal tendencies"-----a statement which stands in very stark contrast to the statements on hospital notes by Kosminski"s doctors and other medical practitioners at Colney Hatch and Leavesdon, both of these institutions stating he was NOT dangerous.

Police Chief Macnaghten though definitely thought Druitt a better suspect for Jack the Ripper----
........so much for Police Chief Anderson"s "low class Polish Jew" as the preferred police candidate for JtR or for that being any kind of "definitely ascertainable" fact!

[Jeff Leahy]

, both of these institutions stating he was NOT dangerous.

You mean rather like Peter Sutcliff?

Police Chief Macnaghten though definitely thought Druitt a better suspect for Jack the Ripper----
........so much for Police Chief Anderson"s "low class Polish Jew" as the preferred police candidate for JtR or for that being any kind of "definitely ascertainable" fact!

Actually between 1959, when the name kosminski was first in public domain, and 1981, it was considered by most Ripper authorities of the time, that Pizer was Anderson's suspect.

That is why Colins scenerario cleverly allows for the name Kosminski to enter the time frame of a possible hoax at a much early time. Of course it also suffers from the problem that the name kosminski must have come from DS Swanson in the first place.

There is of course another solution that has been put forward by the wizard of Oz which bests you both.

However, the basic fact remains that the two experts who have examined the Marginalia have both concluded 'it was probably written by DS Swanson"

If you would like to take me up on my bet, I guess around two or three thousand should cover it

Pirate

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me Nats...

Being as neutral as possible on this whole issue...other than totally rejecting the idea that this identification was a mere anti-foreigner "usual suspect" set up...... and someone with no dog in the fight...

How do you or I know whether or not if it was Swanson that was present at the identification of the suspect...,,, with SRA nowhere in sight...and that Swanson merely corroborated (with the footnotes) what he himself told SRA about the details of this identification ? Where's it say that one way or the other in the literature, Nats?

How do we know that someone else who attended the identification on behalf of the police department with the two officials nowhere in sight... didn't tell Swanson first...who then told SRA...who (SRA) then goes on to write about the identification first...who then authors an autobiography....Swanson reads his copy...gets to the identification part of the book....and then makes some notes ?

How do we know that someone who attended the identification didn't tell both of the officials what went down according to that individual's interpretation of events...and that SRA first wrote about it with Swanson following suit with the footnotes ?

There's a few variables I think that get overlooked in this entire affair as far as who did what first and if either man was actually present. Enough so to keep this aspect of the Case going for another 121 years......

Whether or not the notations are legitimate is an issue I'm not qualified to comment on...obviously.. My only concern is that we haven't explored the possibility that Swanson was present and only corroborating what he or someone else told SRA....and we have things assbackwards .

If it is assbackwards, then is it not possible that SRA was actually merely reflecting upon what his colleague had told him, first in Blackwood's and then in his biography ?...without dropping his name ( Swanson's) into the mix? Just like he didn't drop Kosminski's name into the mix.

[Monty]

A plea

Guys,

A slight deviation, apologies.

Having just listened to the podcast entitled The Ripper Scribes, recorded on June 30th, 2008.

Towards the end Martin Fido makes a claim, rather boldly I feel, that the Marginalia is the real deal. And he goes to explain that his reasoning can be found in an essay situated on the interenet. Well I cant find it.

Cant anyone point me in the right direction as Id be very interested in his ideas.


Cheers
Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

Like it or not, and I don't, speculation is unavoidable when considering circumstances such as these. And speculation will always give rise to the greatest disagreement and debate.

However, sensible speculation should always be based on facts and accurate assessment of what is acceptable as the historical record of the subject under consideration. This is a rather complex subject and debate is never helped by those who fail to get their facts right and who are working from an agenda of preconceived ideas. A few comments in the foregoing should, perhaps, be considered.

It was stated that "...neither reports have been published in full." Fine, but are there two reports? Whilst Dr Davies has prepared a full and proper report giving his assessment of the annotations, having examined the originals carefully, I am not so sure that this is the case with R. Totty. I am aware there is a personal letter of opinion, but I have never heard of, nor seen, a report.

We have seen a poster state, "...I am totally convinced that Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia." That is fine, that is his belief. However, should there not always be the room for flexibility and the allowance that such a statement as that usually leads to a closed mind on other options, hence the fact that most people would say '...probably wrote the marginalia.'

The statement is also made that "...no one on planet earth have read the reports because, self evidently, they have never been published in full." Such a sweeping and positive statement simply cannot be true. Despite the fact that nothing of whatever R. Totty had to say, be it a report or merely a letter, has been published we do know that Paul Begg has certainly read it. Dr. Davies' report has been seen, to my knowledge, by several people and probably by Paul Begg also. Indeed I would hazard a guess that it (or part of it) will be included in the new A-Z.

But, when all is said and done, the relevant point is not so much that the handwriting, or part of it, may not be Swanson's (however remote such a possibility may be) but that important differences between the marginal annotations and those on the rear free endpaper were missed back in 1988 and the notes were accepted at face value.

Having been revealed within the last nine years, these differences are now being considered and appear to show that the endpaper notes may have been made at a much later date than the marginal notes. This, of course, brings with it the possibility that the writer had become ill or infirm, with reduced mental capacity and memory. This, in turn, could account for apparent errors and oddities to be found in the second set of notes.

[Chris]

Actually between 1959, when the name kosminski was first in public domain, and 1981, it was considered by most Ripper authorities of the time, that Pizer was Anderson's suspect.

And I believe that was still the case until the publication of Martin Fido's book in September 1987.

And although that book brought to light the records relating to Aaron Kozminski, I think I'm right in saying that it didn't mention Anderson's claim that the witness who refused to testify was Jewish - made in Blackwood's Magazine but omitted from the book version of his memoirs. Instead, Fido suggested that the witness who refused to testify was an unnamed City of London PC (p. 208).

In the book by Wilson and Odell published the following month, the statement about the witness being Jewish is included in a concluding section on "Facts and Theories" (p. 104), but not in the main body of the book, where the authors adhere to Rumbelow's view that the suspect was Pizer and the witness was Violenia/Violina (p. 173). (This book appeared in the same month as Charles Nevin's article on the marginalia; in fact I don't know which appeared first.)

It would be remarkable if someone setting out to fake the annotations in 1987 had made precisely the same point as Anderson in his previous Blackwood's article, even though that point had gone unnoticed by all previous Ripper authors.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hypothetical

And I believe that was still the case until the publication of Martin Fido's book in September 1987.
And although that book brought to light the records relating to Aaron Kozminski, I think I'm right in saying that it didn't mention Anderson's claim that the witness who refused to testify was Jewish - made in Blackwood's Magazine but omitted from the book version of his memoirs. Instead, Fido suggested that the witness who refused to testify was an unnamed City of London PC (p. 208).
In the book by Wilson and Odell published the following month, the statement about the witness being Jewish is included in a concluding section on "Facts and Theories" (p. 104), but not in the main body of the book, where the authors adhere to Rumbelow's view that the suspect was Pizer and the witness was Violenia/Violina (p. 173). (This book appeared in the same month as Charles Nevin's article on the marginalia; in fact I don't know which appeared first.)
It would be remarkable if someone setting out to fake the annotations in 1987 had made precisely the same point as Anderson in his previous Blackwood's article, even though that point had gone unnoticed by all previous Ripper authors.

Wasn't it 1965, not 1959, that the name 'Kosminski' entered the public domain?

I think that one of the main thrusts of Colin Roberts' contention was that Swanson himself verbally passed on his knowledge of the case to his son. Hence the fact that if the annotations had, in part or full, been made by a son or grandson then that would account for the inclusion of the information that you cite (i.e. Swanson had told them).

This, of course, is simply a hypothetical scenario and it is not one that I am suggesting was the case.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Howard,
The issue that concerns me most here is not so much the suspicious nature of what appears to be a bogus identification but the contradictory statements made by other police chiefs---one at least actually present at the Eddowes crime scene viz City police chief Henry Smith. Both Macnaghten and Smith are emphatic that the Ripper was NEVER identified. Moreover, Henry Smith in his autobiography, published at much the same time as Anderson" in 1910,is outraged at what he perceived as Anderson"s "slur"on the local Jewish community and writes a whole chapter addressing it at length.Smith takes up Anderson"s statement that the Ripper lived in a" low class" area Whitechapel" amongst his own people" who were also "low class Jews" and Smith states categorically that NOBODY knew where the Ripper lived.
Melville Macnaghten,another contemporary police chief and a close colleague of Anderson"s at Scotland Yard, is every bit as emphatic as Smith."NOBODY EVER SAW THE RIPPER" he stated,"UNLESS it was the [beat]PC in MITRE SQUARE---------who Macnaghten is implying may have caught a glimpse of him----no mention whatever of this crucial possible witness being Jewish---only that he was a [beat]PC in Mitre Square.Macnaghten writes this in his own autobiography,"Days of My Years "--- that is FOUR YEARS AFTER Anderson stated his "definitely ascertainable fact" [of knowing who the ripper was] in his 1910 autobiography,"The Lighter Side of My Official Life"!!!!

I take your points Howard.You may be right,but as Stewart points out the important issues to address here are surely the DIFFERENCES in the PENCIL mark and HANDWRITING between the Marginalia and the end notes and why they were missed in the first place.

As for speculation, why couldnt one of Swanson"s descendants have written in the details ----perhaps to show off to one their close friends that their uncle or grandfather had "identified" Jack the Ripper?After all ,one,quite elderly grandson of Anderson"s, did go to the News of The World as soon as he spotted what appeared to be a definite note on an "identification" in 1981---why couldnt a younger,even more spirited nephew or niece have "filled in the notes at the back" [years before they were rediscovered by Jim Swanson] with what they had heard on the grapevine at home ?
Lets not forget either that quite a number of distinguished men -----such as Dr Thomas Stowall, the eminent surgeon and colleague of Gull"s son -in- law Dyke Acland, came out with some rather "outlandish" statements in their time.Anderson and his descendents wouldnt have a monopoly here on suspicious finds thats is for sure.
Best Wishes

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning, trust you are all well.

The Date 1959 I took from the A to Z and dates to Daniel Farson’s discovery of the Abberconway version of the Magnaughten Memoranda. This contains the first reference I can find to the name Kosminski. And I simply presumed in would have been mentioned in his broadcast (which I have never been able to find) However it does not give a braoadcast date.

But that was my logic for the first time the name was in public domain.

And as Chris has correctly elaborated if someone was going to deliberately try a hoax, Kosminski was far from the obvious name to use.

I was replying to a hypothetical scenario put forward by Colin that attempts to explain this, as SPE and Chris are saying, by introducing Swanson telling the children at an earlier time the name KOSMINSKI.

Again I do not easily buy this idea. Parents of the Victorian era (I had Grandparents of this era) didn’t discuss such matters in detail with children, children were to be protected. It also relies on them correctly guessing the rather odd spelling.

Just to pick up on one other point. I Don’t believe a report has to have a dictated length?

“Whats the weather like today?” Blue Sky with some fluffy clouds, rather Mild.

That’s six words.

All the best

Pirate