Did Anderson Know

[Stewart P Evans]

Marginalia

Okay, If Swanson's comments are not a frogery then does it not stand to reason that Anderson was telling the truth. Swanson would not have known his comments would be published years later. He would have no reason to write misleading information. It is not the credibility of Anderson that is going to prove one way or the other but is the Swanson Marginalia genuine that is the question. If it is genuine then I believe Anderson was telling the truth.
Brad

It is far from proven that the Swanson Marginalia, and endpaper annotations, or part of them, are a fake. It is more that valid questions have now been raised about them whereas they were for a long time blindly accepted as genuine without any proper testing having been done. However, even if genuine it does not obviate the possibility of the adapting of the story of a witness identification by Anderson and Swanson to bolster their own preferred suspect theory. In 1987 the 'discovery' of the notes in the Anderson book seemed like the best thing since sliced bread to Ripperologists. Now they are more guarded and cautious about accepting anything without proper analysis and assessment.

[Stewart P Evans]

1901 - The Nineteenth Century

The next stage in the evolution of Anderson's story appeared in the year of his retirement from New Scotland Yard, 1901. It was in The Nineteenth Century, February 1901 issue -

[celee]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply and the information Stewart. Is there any way of testing the Swanson marginalia to see if it is genuine?

Your friend, Brad

[Natalie Severn]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply and the information Stewart. Is there any way of testing the Swanson marginalia to see if it is genuine?

Your friend, Brad

Thats what I call a sensible question Brad.Thanks for that!

[Jeff Leahy]

Thats what I call a sensible question Brad.Thanks for that!

But then I seem to remember that a little while ago a lot of calling for tests was made...

Then all of a sudden for some strange reason a document that belongs to the nation is suddenly NOT available for a national exhibision on Jack the Ripper.

Very strange that, I wonder where it could be?

No one seems to be claiming its fake anyway?

[Natalie Severn]

Can I ask too,Pirate Jack Jeff, why you are hopping threads and attempting to divert the discussion from whether Anderson knew what he said he knew or----whether these "definitely ascertained facts" of Anderson"s were just more of what Winston Churchill called "Anderson"s Fairy Tales"?[brilliant shorthand way Churchill had to describe Anderson"s weird and wonderful relationship with the truth!]

[Christine]

There aren't a lot of tests. They could test the paper, but of course there is no doubt about the origin of the paper. Ink can be tested, but unless you are fool enough to use a modern ink (like Diamine) there is nothing that can be found. You can easily make your own ink which is indistinguishable from authentic old ink. Handwriting can be compared to known samples, but that is rarely definitive.

[Chris]

Here's a link to a press release from 11 January 2007 on analysis of the handwriting carried out by the Forensic Science Service:

http://tinyurl.com/3hculh

[Natalie Severn]

Here's a link to a press release from 11 January 2007 on analysis of the handwriting carried out by the Forensic Science Service:
http://tinyurl.com/3hculh

Thanks Chris,
It will be interesting to hear what others have to say as it seems to completely confirm Stewart Evans"s queries about the end paper notes.Their view comes across as being that while the margin notes seem genuine enough the other,end paper notes are much less convincing.
I notice too that in the report on Anderson"s theory,they remark on how largely Jewish suspects figured in Anderson"s particular mindset----an issue picked up and argued against very rigorously at the time by Major Henry Smith ,Chief Commissioner of the City Police.

[Jeff Leahy]

There aren't a lot of tests. They could test the paper, but of course there is no doubt about the origin of the paper. Ink can be tested, but unless you are fool enough to use a modern ink (like Diamine) there is nothing that can be found. You can easily make your own ink which is indistinguishable from authentic old ink. Handwriting can be compared to known samples, but that is rarely definitive.

Its written in pencil..

and I would like to draw Nats attension to the following:

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...

enough said..

I'm sure if there had been any suggestion of forgery we all would have heard of it by now...

So hopefully everyone is agreed..its genuine

[Chris]

I notice too that in the report on Anderson"s theory,they remark on how largely Jewish suspects figured in Anderson"s particular mindset----an issue picked up and argued against very rigorously at the time by Major Henry Smith ,Chief Commissioner of the City Police.

Actually, I can't see any reference to Anderson there apart from the statement that he was the author of the book with the annotations in it (and that he was the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time of "the crime" - ?).

Perhaps it's worth quoting the relevant parts of the press release in full:

He compared the two samples of literature for their general style, the size, spacing, fluency and proportions and found it was highly likely they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson.
...
“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.”

[Natalie Severn]

Its written in pencil..

and I would like to draw Nats attension to the following:

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...

enough said..

I'm sure if there had been any suggestion of forgery we all would have heard of it by now...

So hopefully everyone is agreed..its genuine

I know you can read Pirate Jack Jeff,but the report suggests the end notes are not genuine---sorry

[Chris]

I know you can read Pirate Jack Jeff,but the report suggests the end notes are not genuine---sorry

No - the report says it is "highly likely" that the annotations in the book were written by Swanson. It points to "small differences" between the two sets of annotations, which could be due to the ageing process, though it says that we can't be "completely certain" that they are.

But it does point out that this could raise questions about the reliability of the second set of notes. Reliability is different from genuineness, of course.

[Jeff Leahy]

Actually, I can't see any reference to Anderson there apart from the statement that he was the author of the book with the annotations in it (and that he was the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at the time of "the crime" - ?).

Perhaps it's worth quoting the relevant parts of the press release in full:

He compared the two samples of literature for their general style, the size, spacing, fluency and proportions and found it was highly likely they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson.
...
“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.”

Actually it simply says they were written at differant times in a differant pencil.

So he could have been writing one in his study..gone for lunch and finished it in the summer house..perhaps only hours, days or weeks apart..

Which isnt uncommon with such things, mine are often some time apart.

And yes everyone I can 'read' actually its getting rather borring..

Jeff

[Chris]

Actually it simply says they were written at differant times in a differant pencil.

Obviously it says a lot more than that.