Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

No, Not Paranoia

“Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.”

Do I detect a touch of paranoia? Paul has made it clear that he is available for comment on JtRforums. I have absolutely no idea how he has choosen to address the subject in the new A to Z.
I choose my words carefully precisely to avoid a silly quarrel based on samantics.
“That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.”
“What was interesting about analyzing 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.”
Yes fair comment. But the exact period of time is not stated, and one must assume a rather difficult thing to be precise upon.
‘Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.’
No its called wit. And the comments clearly related to a ficticious senario posted by Colin in which he imagines Donald Swansons children forging the marginalia. A rather homourous speculation that I choose to reply to with humour. It is simply wild speculation with no evidence to back it up.
“The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.”

I assume that a copy of the marginalia was sent to an expert, and that that expert was happy to give his expert opinion on the hand writing based on information received. If that expert claimed it was ‘Swansons’ then one must presume that the information at that time was correct.
Another expert examines the original some years later and gives a more detail report. Still stating it was proably written by Swanson.
I believe Paul gave a detail explination on JtRforums. However the basic FACT remains that ‘in all probability Swanson wrote it….and not a bunch of teenagers as suggested by Colin and to which I was replying.
‘The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.”

Yes this is a point you have raised before. And at the last conference. On each occasion I have agreed it is a very valid point and that I am in agreement with YOU.
However it does not change my basic premise that Anderson was not Lying or making the episode up. Something happened and Swanson and Anderson both seem aware of the situation.
All the best
Pirate

No, not paranoia, it's just that I'm never sure whether I am debating with the chauffeur or his passenger.

Yes, indeed, it does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. I have not suggested that they were not probably in Swanson's hand. The changes certainly could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration. A very relevant consideration. Do not presume to tell me about Victorian handwriting, I have dozens of Victorian letters in my collection. The report certainly will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case - something that the A-Z entry - "Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner" did not allow for, because the problems with the writing had been missed. And this blind acceptance stood for many years.

Sorry, I can never tell with you whether it is wit or something else.

As I have stated in the past, in the original 'examination' only photocopies of a sample of Swanson's handwriting and the marginalia were sent to the expert - and no such expert, to my knowledge, would ever make a conclusive and proper examination of the handwriting in this way. Indeed, that is obviously why he didn't pick up on the differences found in the recent examination. Until that original expert's report is published we will never know exactly what he said.

[Jeff Leahy]

“Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.”

Do I detect a touch of paranoia? Paul has made it clear that he is available for comment on JtRforums. I have absolutely no idea how he has choosen to address the subject in the new A to Z.
I choose my words carefully precisely to avoid a silly quarrel based on samantics.

“That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.”

“What was interesting about analyzing 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.”

Yes fair comment. But the exact period of time is not stated, and one must assume a rather difficult thing to be precise upon.

‘Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.’

No its called wit. And the comments clearly related to a ficticious senario posted by Colin in which he imagines Donald Swansons children forging the marginalia. A rather homourous speculation that I choose to reply to with humour. It is simply wild speculation with no evidence to back it up.

“The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.”

I assume that a copy of the marginalia was sent to an expert, and that that expert was happy to give his expert opinion on the hand writing based on information received. If that expert claimed it was ‘Swansons’ then one must presume that the information at that time was correct.
Another expert examines the original some years later and gives a more detail report. Still stating it was proably written by Swanson.

I believe Paul gave a detail explination on JtRforums. However the basic FACT remains that ‘in all probability Swanson wrote it….and not a bunch of teenagers as suggested by Colin and to which I was replying.

‘The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.”

Yes this is a point you have raised before. And at the last conference. On each occasion I have agreed it is a very valid point and that I am in agreement with YOU.

However it does not change my basic premise that Anderson was not Lying or making the episode up. Something happened and Swanson and Anderson both seem aware of the situation.

All the best
Pirate

... a scenario that involved teenagers creating the Marginalia in order to save Daddy’s reputation.

Teenagers at the time of the 1901 census; and teenagers still, at the time of "Daddy's" death, in 1924.

You are as obtuse as your little monkey side-kick!

[Stewart P Evans]

Annotations

I used the word PROBABLY because that was the word I required.
And while the annotations MAY have been written some time later there is also the possibility that they were written later on the same day when the author was tiered or simply had a drink. As you well know an exact estimation of the time lapse between annotations has not been given.
My theatrical use of the ‘collapse of British History’ was intended as a humorous response to a scenario that involved teenagers creating the Marginalia in order to save Daddy’s reputation. Clearly if the provenance and authenticity of every historical document from Magna-Carter onwards were called into question it would greatly alter our perceptions of what was.
I was NOT suggesting that a Criminal Record was a prerequisite for fakery, I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence to suggest that the people named in the scenario had any criminal record or convictions, and thus was establishing their ‘good characters’. Which is fair game for any defending Barrister in a hypothetical scenario.
As you well know the above A to Z quote was made before the results of the second examination. However the most important fact is that both handwriting experts confirmed that the writing was in all probability made by D S Swanson.
Therefore in matters relating to the supposed ID I think it fair, in the context of this thread, to state that Andersons claims in the book ‘The Lighter side of my official Life” about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson.
All the best
Pirate

Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.

That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.

Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.

The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.

The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert

Sorry if I was not being clear. What I meant was corroborated that a STORY of Identification existed.

So even if Anderson was not present at the identification and gained all his information from Swanson it would appear that he was not lying about or inventing such an event or at least the report of it..

It surely must have happened unless the very unlikely scenario that Swanson made it up? And I think it unlikely that Anderson would have made it up and lied to Swanson as the Marginalia appears to correct Anderson’s errors

But as you say they need not both have witnessed the event. All I am saying is that something occurred and both men appear to have knowledge of it.

Pirate

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

This may sound like a quibble, but it doesn't necessarily have to be independent, surely? If Anderson was at the Home, and saw and heard these things, and if Swanson was ditto, then there would be independent corroboration. Or, if some other officer(s) who was present at the ID subsequently told both Anderson and Swanson, then that would be two pieces of independent evidence at least as concerns what the officer said about the ID. But how do we know that Swanson wasn't simply following Anderson, or vice versa?

[Jeff Leahy]

I used the word PROBABLY because that was the word I required.

And while the annotations MAY have been written some time later there is also the possibility that they were written later on the same day when the author was tiered or simply had a drink. As you well know an exact estimation of the time lapse between annotations has not been given.

My theatrical use of the ‘collapse of British History’ was intended as a humorous response to a scenario that involved teenagers creating the Marginalia in order to save Daddy’s reputation. Clearly if the provenance and authenticity of every historical document from Magna-Carter onwards were called into question it would greatly alter our perceptions of what was.

I was NOT suggesting that a Criminal Record was a prerequisite for fakery, I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence to suggest that the people named in the scenario had any criminal record or convictions, and thus was establishing their ‘good characters’. Which is fair game for any defending Barrister in a hypothetical scenario.

As you well know the above A to Z quote was made before the results of the second examination. However the most important fact is that both handwriting experts confirmed that the writing was in all probability made by D S Swanson.

Therefore in matters relating to the supposed ID I think it fair, in the context of this thread, to state that Andersons claims in the book ‘The Lighter side of my official Life” about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson.

All the best
Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

The Swanson Marginalia

Apropos of 'the Swanson Marginalia' it should be noted that had it been properly examined when it entered the public arena in 1987/88 the present debates would in all probability, not be taking place.

Obvious points were missed and no proper forensic document examination was carried out. When I first examined the annotations in 2000 I immediately noticed that the pencil used on page 138 of the book was not the same as the one used on the endpaper notes which were shown as a continuation of the first notes. If I, no document expert, could spot these problems, why hadn't they been noted before?

Whilst not proving any sort of fakery these differences should have been addressed and explained years ago, and the present queries would not have been raised. The points I raised as a result of seeing the annotations 'in the flesh' were proved to be correct when the book was examined by Christopher Davies M.A., D.Phil. in 2006 when the book was donated to the Crime Museum.

Moreover, the difference between the handwriting in the body of the book (page 138), and on the rear free endpaper, according to the expert, may have been because they were written some time later when the writer was much older. He found that Swanson was probably the writer of the annotations. The fact that it is likely that the endpaper notes (where the problems lie) were written later and at a more advanced age is, of course, very relevant.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fakery

...
To my knowledge none of the people you mention have any criminal record for fraud and deception. Indeed the entire family to my knowledge are whiter than white.
Most authorities I have spoken to about Jim Swanson do NOT believe him capable of creating a hoax.
The Sums of money involved are so small they defy a logical explanation for a comparatively wealthy family having done so for money.
Both handwriting Experts who have studied the marginalia believe it was probably written by Donald Swanson.
The Marginalia is as genuine as most historical records can be…if we question its authenticity then almost all of our historical records must also be questioned. British History collapses.

A few points regarding the above -

Is a criminal record a prerequisite for fakery? Even a seasoned police officer would be incapable of assessing whether any particular person was capable of creating a hoax. I often had an elderly grandfather or grandmother under arrest for theft lying through their teeth that they were innocent when the evidence against them was solid. You lose faith in human nature as a police officer.

The motive in this case, if the fakery scenario were correct (and I am not suggesting that it is), would be to boost the status and recognition of an ancestor rather than any monetary gain.

Only probably written by Donald Swanson? Surely the A-Z tells us that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner". This is a very precise and definitive statement, so why are you saying 'probably'?

"British history collapses"! That's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Or does the veracity of 'British history' really depend upon the authenticity of some obscure pieces of scribbling in an old book?

As a footnote I must add that I am not saying here that I think the marginalia is faked. I am merely responding to the ridiculous statements made above.

[Jeff Leahy]

Now whose avoiding the questions?

Hi Colin

It’s Not a question of not being able to Colin but simply not having the time to check dates and names.

Besides if I went through every Fairy tale in detail I could be stuck here to Christmas arguing the toss over something that is further out there than Stephen Knight or the Maybrick Diary.

However against your scenario (and off the top of my head) and against my better judgment.

There is a limited time frame in which the information contained in the marginalia could have been forged. I believe that the name Kosminski first appeared around 1959.

And that the Marginalia was first offered for publication in the 1980’s. That gives no more than 10 to. 20 years.

Also my understanding is that Kosminski may not have been a logical or popular choice for Anderson's jewish suspect for most of this time frame.

To my knowledge none of the people you mention have any criminal record for fraud and deception. Indeed the entire family to my knowledge are whiter than white.

Most authorities I have spoken to about Jim Swanson do NOT believe him capable of creating a hoax.

The Sums of money involved are so small they defy a logical explanation for a comparatively wealthy family having done so for money.

So your scenario relies on a load of kids giving a damn?

The idea that anyone in there teens is capable of such an act is simply beyond belief. Teenagers are interested in the contents of their pants NOT JtR. If only I had written down my Granddads deeds at Dunkirk (He was the last man to leave) However I did NOT and I expect that most of you also failed to record your family history and now also regret not having done so, when you were kids of this age.

Both handwriting Experts who have studied the marginalia believe it was probably written by Donald Swanson.

The provenance of the marginalia is excellent.

There are other examples of Donald Swanson making other similar marginalia. Well recorded. And also available for analysis.

You have nothing what so ever to back up or prove your fantasy. Not one shrap of evidence not one piece of proof to justify your allegations at innocent people.

As I originally alluded to your claim relies on the said teenagers being able not only to memorize what Donald said but also to get the spelling correct.

In short you have nothing what so ever to substantiate your claim, and it is about as probable as Millwall beating Westham in the FA cup this season.

However my major concern is that if enough Ripperologists throw this sort of unsubstantiated MUD about the authenticity of the Marginalia, then some poor sap might actually believe that there is some evidence to back it up, which there is NOT

The Marginalia is as genuine as most historical records can be…if we question its authenticity then almost all of our historical records must also be questioned. British History collapses.

Thankfully however, It’s a DUCK

Pirate

And to think that 'Ripperology' is not considered a legitimate academic discipline!

I can't imagine why!

[Jeff Leahy]

psst...Colin,Its actually "Dr Jeff" ----he"s got a Ph d now in bullshit,following his double first in bollocks and quackery!

Dr who?

These are words NAT, provide the proof, or apologuise, Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Colin

It’s Not a question of not being able to Colin but simply not having the time to check dates and names.

Besides if I went through every Fairy tale in detail I could be stuck here to Christmas arguing the toss over something that is further out there than Stephen Knight or the Maybrick Diary.

However against your scenario (and off the top of my head) and against my better judgment.

There is a limited time frame in which the information contained in the marginalia could have been forged. I believe that the name Kosminski first appeared around 1959.

And that the Marginalia was first offered for publication in the 1980’s. That gives no more than 10 to. 20 years.

Also my understanding is that Kosminski may not have been a logical or popular choice for Anderson's jewish suspect for most of this time frame.

To my knowledge none of the people you mention have any criminal record for fraud and deception. Indeed the entire family to my knowledge are whiter than white.

Most authorities I have spoken to about Jim Swanson do NOT believe him capable of creating a hoax.

The Sums of money involved are so small they defy a logical explanation for a comparatively wealthy family having done so for money.

So your scenario relies on a load of kids giving a damn?

The idea that anyone in there teens is capable of such an act is simply beyond belief. Teenagers are interested in the contents of their pants NOT JtR. If only I had written down my Granddads deeds at Dunkirk (He was the last man to leave) However I did NOT and I expect that most of you also failed to record your family history and now also regret not having done so, when you were kids of this age.

Both handwriting Experts who have studied the marginalia believe it was probably written by Donald Swanson.

The provenance of the marginalia is excellent.

There are other examples of Donald Swanson making other similar marginalia. Well recorded. And also available for analysis.

You have nothing what so ever to back up or prove your fantasy. Not one shrap of evidence not one piece of proof to justify your allegations at innocent people.

As I originally alluded to your claim relies on the said teenagers being able not only to memorize what Donald said but also to get the spelling correct.

In short you have nothing what so ever to substantiate your claim, and it is about as probable as Millwall beating Westham in the FA cup this season.

However my major concern is that if enough Ripperologists throw this sort of unsubstantiated MUD about the authenticity of the Marginalia, then some poor sap might actually believe that there is some evidence to back it up, which there is NOT

The Marginalia is as genuine as most historical records can be…if we question its authenticity then almost all of our historical records must also be questioned. British History collapses.

Thankfully however, It’s a DUCK

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

psst...Colin,Its actually "Dr Jeff" ----he"s got a Ph d now in bullshit,following his double first in bollocks and quackery!

To my knowledge Martin Fido is not a Dr, although clearly there can be few people more deserving of being made so.

You left a drop on your chin, Jeff!

As for the ‘Hollywood’ opus magnus scenario, my suggestions are Johnny Depp as Jim Swanson, and his evil brother and master forger played by Russell Crow, with Kate Winslett playing the younger sister who has a photographic memory and gets the spelling spot on while creating all the other bits of Marginalia and impersonating Donald in a frock. In the end jack the Ripper himself comes down in a spacecraft and flies away with the Fairies.

I didn't think you were capable of offering an honest appraisal of the hypothetical scenario that I proposed. You have shown that indeed … you are not!

PS Dr John Watson: Congratulations you were the only person to come up with a scenario that could truly be described as RESONABLE.

Do you actually believe your own bullshit?