Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

The Swanson Marginalia

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

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'.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Report

...
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...
Pirate

A report by a Home Office Forensic examiner is a very specific thing, it is detailed, subject to certain disciplines and usually follows a set format.

A simple personal letter stating an opinion on two photocopy samples of handwriting received is an entirely different matter. It is not, and cannot be, a proper report by 'the Home Office document examiner.'

So to simply state that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner" is both incorrect and misleading.

[Stewart P Evans]

Martin Fido

Further to Monty's query regarding the Martin Fido 'essay' on the 'marginalia', perhaps a few relevant quotes from the post mentioned may help: "This very characteristic gentlemanliness and honesty typifies the traits that made those of us who met him absolutely convinced that there could be no hanky-panky about Mr [Jim] Swanson: the provenance was absolutely certain as Mr Swanson was pretty sure his aunt had never even opened the book."

"Now add to the time line the fact that the Home Office expert received not one but two pieces to compare with the marginalia. Paul Begg was as cautious as Grey Hunter and insisted on sending a photocopy of the marginalia with a sample of DSS's handwriting for examination. I well remember being called to the telephone in the St Katherine's Dock Yacht Club one night to hear a shocked Paul tell me the marginalia were forged: the Home Office expert said there was not a single point of comparison between the two hands. Now I had seen a great deal of Swanson's handwriting both before and after his retirement, including marginalia in other books and the brief recollections he wrote in a notebook; I also have some postgraduate training in paleography (the deciphering of old hands) and considerable experience of deciphering much more difficult Victorian handwriting than Swanson's (notable Disraeli's scrawl and Dickens's varied fist). I have struggled with "crossed" letters where paper folded to make its own envelope has its message side overwritten at a perpendicular angle to give the space of two pages rather than one. I had no doubt whatsoever that the marginalia were in Swanson's hand, and the provenance was so good that my scholarly training told me this was genuine without a shadow of a doubt. I confidently pronounced the Home Office expert absolutely wrong, much to Paul's distress and concern for my sense and sanity. But he looked carefully at the report he had received, and suddenly realized that he had mistakenly sent in a memorandum by some one else as the supposed example of Swanson's handwriting. When he corrected this he received the positive report from the Home Office, and, to echo the confident Inspector Abberline (retd) you may take my word for it, there isn't the remotest possibility that the Swanson marginalia are forged."

A word of caution should, perhaps, be inserted here. For in Martin's book, and the A-Z, he states that the Packer 'statement' was written by Sir Charles Warren. He confidently writes, "Warren took down the following statement in his own hand:..." and also states "The statement is initialled CW." Well it isn't, as my examination of the Packer 'statement' revealed it was actually initialled 'ACB' and was written by the Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce and not Warren.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have just checked the A to Z and can not see the word ‘REPORT’ used anywhere.

“Paul Harrison’s suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson’s by the home Office document examiner.”

Just ‘the handwriting is confirmed’.

I have only been using the word in its general meaning not relating it to a specific format ‘of which I have no knowledge’. However I except that the connotations of the word ‘report’ might be different in the police to how it would be used at say CNN or TWI.

Martin Fido however does allude to a report, but NOT what form that report takes or whether he uses the meaning, as SPE suggests, as a specific styled and worded document..

It also strikes me that everyone is concentrating on the actual handwriting. However surely that is NOT the only toll by which the documents provenance can be concluded.

After all we have already agreed that hand writing analysis is not an exact science.

Surely Martin Fido’s expertise in Literature would also judge for whether “The way the end notes are phrased” are likely to be the way Swanson would have phrased them? Surely his judgment was not only the actual writing but also “WHAT WAS WRITEN”

Especially as there were other examples of Swanson making Marginalia.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Aware

...
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.
...
Pirate

I am, of course, aware that Farson's broadcast of the finding of the Aberconway version of the 'Macnaghten memoranda', in Farson's Guide to the British, went out in 1959. I know that Druitt's initials, 'MJD', only were given and I was not aware that Kosminski's name was put into the public domain at that time. It certainly was in 1965 with the publication of Cullen's book Autumn of Terror.

[Stewart P Evans]

I Did Not Say...

I have just checked the A to Z and can not see the word ‘REPORT’ used anywhere...
I have only been using the word in its general meaning not relating it to a specific format ‘of which I have no knowledge’. However I except that the connotations of the word ‘report’ might be different in the police to how it would be used at say CNN or TWI.
Martin Fido however does allude to a report, but NOT what form that report takes or whether he uses the meaning, as SPE suggests, as a specific styled and worded document..
Pirate

I sometimes think of debates with 'Pirate' as an arduous uphill struggle - with no guarantee of reaching the top.

I did not say that the word 'report' was used in the A-Z entry, in fact if you look back I have already given the relevant wording of the A-Z entry, which you have now repeated. Accepting that the entry tells us that that '...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner.' we have to accept that published statement as it is given and it seems clear enough. I have never thought there was a proper report made as I know only of a letter from the Home Office examiner received by Paul Begg and which he once waved around on a TV programme as confirmation of the 'marginalia's' veracity. As far as I know the contents of that letter have never been made public.

It is also not a question of "the connotations of the word 'report' being different in the police to how it would be used at say CNN or TWI." Like many words, the word 'report' has more than one meaning depending upon the context in which it is being used. Here we are speaking of it in the context of what a Home Office document examiner wrote. And if that is in relation to his examination of handwriting examples then there is a proper, official format to follow. 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.

You know, I find it very difficult to not be rude in exchanges like this, but I will (I must) control myself. Please internalise what I have written and don't put irrelevant, meaningless and incorrect interpretations on it.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.