'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

Jeff

Well, while you're taking other people to task, can I suggest that if you are posting something somebody else has written, you should be honest enough make that clear, even if the person in question wishes to conceal his identity.

If you're not willing to do that, I don't see how you can expect anyone to engage in discussion with you.

[Ally]

The problem is not your clumsy questions, a statement made in an attempt to garner sympathy and make you seem all cute and quaint and bumbling.

The problem is your attempt to seed the record with false testimony that supports your mentor, and testimony that blatantly changes when the buzzer gets switched.

You claim things that didn't happen (or actually did, but you have to retract now, who knows) and now the facts are completely jumbled. And while I am sure that it is to Paul's benefit that you are willing to go now as the one inventing stories on his behalf, I am less interested in the goat, than the truth.

So here is what we are led to believe:

Paul, a formerly considered scholarly and meticulous researcher, never examined the marginalia in detail or even noticed the differing pencils before he pronounced it genuine.

Jeff, never had a conversation with him discussing the two pencil discrepancies in detail, despite clearly remembering this occurring but a few days ago.


So my question is this: Did Fido or Skinner ever examine the marginalia in detail before they announced it genuine?

Or did they just decide to take the word of the document examiner, who had not even seen the originals. This despite every single source I have been able to find on handwriting analysis saying that the originals need to be examined to provide an accurate analysis, and that photocopies should not be relied on unless there are obvious differences. So it is clear that in the case of a "possible" forgery, where the author is trying to make it as close as possible, and trace or what have you to get those results, photocopies will not suffice.

So I just want to point out clearly what we are being told happened here: The authors of the A-Z failed to adequately investigate the accuracy of the marginalia, never looked at it, never examined it closely, before saying, beyond all doubt and refutation that it was genuine.

[Stewart P Evans]

Authenticity

Hold on a minute Stewart. The offensive post I made was in response to a string of sneering posts you made. They had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with Paul Begg.
Ironically you attacked me personally with very much the same sort of sentiment you yourself are complaining about..
My only interest is in the identity of JtR. Not in personal politics’.
Clearly there are currently two schools of thought in this area and I’m interested in why? And I will continue to ask difficult questions of both sides of that thought process/argument. Out of public interest.
If you have a person gripe with Paul that’s up to you but don’t drag me into it.
I am quite capable of listening to both sides of the argument and drawing my own conclusions. However I don’t see why I should be personally insulted by anyone, no matter what there standing in the field. It’s that simple. And if you do I hold the right to retaliate.
I simply request in the interest of debate and discussion that you yourself refrain from personal abuse. I certainly have NO personal differences with you. None what so ever. Indeed I am very interested in what you have to say..
I have copies in front of me, of both Scotland Yard Investigates and Sir Robert Anderson: A source Analysis, contrary to popular conception I can read. And I’m quite capable of reaching my own conclusions, which neither totally agree with Begg, Fido or Evans.
Just lay off the personal insults Stewart and stay on topic.
Pirate

The 'string of sneering posts', as you call them, if you look were instigated by some of the, frankly, silly posts that you were making. Posts that served only to deflect things from the focus they had been enjoying.

You said, "What worries some people is not Stewart's position, which is fine, but that some people have taken that position to question the authenticity of the marginalia. Which no one, as far as I understand, is questioning as being authentic.
And I think this is important.
The marginalia is, in Fact, written by Swanson."

Whilst I realise that you have now stepped back from the last stated 'fact', and now use the word 'probability', it was rather a sweeping comment to make in the first place. And, of course, there is Paul Harrison in his book, who has actually questioned its authenticity, and others who have noted this privately without publishing their feelings or ideas.

Your observation 'the Maybrick diary has a lot to answer for' seems to indicate that but for the fake 'diary' no one would be questioning the Swanson notes. But, of course, Harrison's published doubts about the 'Swanson Marginalia' being genuine were published in 1991 - before the 'diary' appeared.

You speak of 'personal politics' and 'a person[al] gripe with Paul' as if everything I have said is down to a personal dispute - which isn't true. It is more a question of correct procedures and publishing all that is known, that has been in question here, together with things stated in Paul's latest article. If you, yourself, make what can only be described as ill informed, incorrect or badly judged comments then I am afraid that you must expect some of the responses that you get.

Finally, do not tell me what to do in any shape or form.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Well, while you're taking other people to task, can I suggest that if you are posting something somebody else has written, you should be honest enough make that clear, even if the person in question wishes to conceal his identity.

If you're not willing to do that, I don't see how you can expect anyone to engage in discussion with you.

I fail to see what relevance this has to personal insults. It’s also way off topic.

If Stewart wishes to talk directly to Paul he can and everyone is now aware where Paul is and how to do so.

Pirate

[Ally]

Actually, whether or not you are posting messages at Paul's behest is entirely relevant, if only that we can view them without the bias that your testimony now engenders, seeing as how it is apparently completely unreliable.

[Stewart P Evans]

Latest Issue

...
If Stewart wishes to talk directly to Paul he can and everyone is now aware where Paul is and how to do so.
Pirate

Paul Begg has made, in the latest issue of Ripperologist, certain comments (as decribed in preceding posts) which reflect on me personally and upon my work. In a like manner, I have responded in a public forum. Why on earth should I want to talk to him directly?

[Ally]

Stewart,

I respect and agree with your right to defend, and in whatever forum, manner or media you choose, to refute any and all claims made against you in the article in question.

I believe, if I am not mistaken that the majority of the comments against your research were regarding Anderson specifically? Perhaps those issues could be gathered in a cohesive manner in an Anderson thread.

Because it is true that Paul is saying that the only research of value into Anderson is Fido's own, and I think it would behoove the subject to have another viewpoint, on the Anderson board to discuss this fact.

Just my opinion.

[Jeff Leahy]

You said, "What worries some people is not Stewart's position, which is fine, but that some people have taken that position to question the authenticity of the marginalia. Which no one, as far as I understand, is questioning as being authentic.
And I think this is important.
The marginalia is, in Fact, written by Swanson."

Whilst I realise that you have now stepped back from the last stated 'fact', and now use the word 'probability', it was rather a sweeping comment to make in the first place. And, of course, there is Paul Harrison in his book, who has actually questioned its authenticity, and others who have noted this privately without publishing their feelings or ideas.

Yes it was a sweeping comment but it still doesn't change the simple FACT that two experts have examined the handwriting and concluded that it is 'Probably' written by Swanson. No matter how many people question it. ANd I have no problem with them doing so, it remains 'Probably' written by Swanson. I'm sorry if I'm not as good with detail wording as you are, but the bigger picture, for me, is what it says, not whether or not it is genuine.

Your observation 'the Maybrick diary has a lot to answer for' seems to indicate that but for the fake 'diary' no one would be questioning the Swanson notes. But, of course, Harrison's published doubts about the 'Swanson Marginalia' being genuine were published in 1991 - before the 'diary' appeared.

I stand by my statement, in that as a whole I think ripperologists are more concerned about forgery and Fakery than many other historical areas of interest. Given the large numbers of hoax's that have happened in the field. Again I was talking generally. I didn't expect the spanish inquisition.

You speak of 'personal politics' and 'a person[al] gripe with Paul' as if everything I have said is down to a personal dispute - which isn't true. It is more a question of correct procedures and publishing all that is known, that has been in question here, together with things stated in Paul's latest article. If you, yourself, make what can only be described as ill informed, incorrect or badly judged comments then I am afraid that you must expect some of the responses that you get.

Finally, do not tell me what to do in any shape or form.

No I havn't. Paul has clearly answered this on Howards site....

But just to add that whoever did the first handwriting analysis made by Paul Begg, was clearly happy to give has opinion based on photocopies..

I admit I also find it odd, but the expert wouldn't have done so unless he thought he could...and he, after all, is the expert here, not you or I.

Pirate

PS Ditto the last comment.

[Stewart P Evans]

And Another Thing

And another thing, just in case anyone thinks that this sort of critical comment by Paul Begg is something new I would refer them to a review of a new book by Melvin Harris that Paul Begg wrote way back in November 1989. Issue 12 of the Police History Society Newsletter carried a review by Paul Begg of Melvin Harris's recently released The Ripper File, (London, W.H. Allen, 1989). In this review Begg used such encouraging descriptions as 'much awaited sequel' and 'handsomely produced and chock-full of illustrations.' So far so good.

By the third paragraph, however, Begg is speaking of an unoriginal argument [is there much in Ripperworld that is original?]. He goes on to say that Harris 'also presents a few hoary - and I had hoped accepted as now disproven arguments, such as the police investigation being "in confused disarray". No serious student of these crimes, as far as I am aware, now accepts that this was the case...' In a review of any book, of course, one must expect the reviewer to touch upon points that he may not agree with or, indeed, that require the objective critic to comment upon. However, Melvin Harris had gone beyond the pale so far as Begg was concerned - for Harris had dared to be critical of Anderson.

He continued, "But my major complaint about the book is the indecent haste and bias with which Harris dismisses the latest evidence; an act all the more reprehensible since it comes from a respected investigator.
In 1910, Sir Robert Anderson, the head of the CID at the time of the murders, wrote in his autobiography that the identity of Jack the Ripper was 'a definitely ascertained fact'. Harris dismisses Anderson by quoting the hurried and inaccurate observation of the very unreliable Major Smith...and by citing what appears to have been a major porky by Anderson..." and goes into the story of the Parnell articles by Anderson in 1887 and the fact that Anderson claimed to have Monro's tacit permission which Monro denied.

Begg concludes, "...but are we to infer, as Harris clearly expects us to, that Anderson was a liar and so unreliable that his claims about the Ripper having been identified can be dismissed." Begg reassures us that "To this day it is not known whether Anderson lied or not, but it seems to be widely accepted by historians that he did not, that he had or that he genuinely thought that he had received Monro's tacit approval. Anderson, it must be said, has been called many things - 'opinionated' and 'irritating' being almost as frequent as 'one of the most brilliant heads of the CID for many years' - but to my knowledge no contemporary ever called him a liar."

Begg then points out that Anderson was not alone in asserting that that the Ripper's identity was known. 'He was supported by Chief Inspector Swanson...' Apropos of Harris's assessment of the Swanson 'marginalia', Begg disgustedly writes, "Harris, however, dismisses Swanson with a Stephen Knight-like flourish - he doesn't believe him!" Oh, so Melvin Harris also cast doubt upon Swanson's word then? Needless to say, Begg dismisses Harris's D'Onston theory summing up by saying "...the D'Onston argument is so hypothetical that if it was a horse it wouldn't even be in the race." OK, that's his opinion and, I daresay, there are many that would agree with him. But the bulk of this review is not concerned with looking at Harris's suspect and considering the arguments. Begg is much more concerned with dismissing Harris's points about Anderson. He ends by saying "...one expects better of someone of his [Harris's] calibre than his shoddy treatment of Anderson and Monro, and a hypothesis no better than some of those he has shot down."

So there you have it, back in 1989 Begg was arguing with almost as much venom against the Anderson critics as he is today. And I think that his use of the word 'reprehensible' (above) to describe Harris's dismissal of Anderson a tad over the top.

[Jeff Leahy]

Paul Begg has made, in the latest issue of Ripperologist, certain comments (as decribed in preceding posts) which reflect on me personally and upon my work. In a like manner, I have responded in a public forum. Why on earth should I want to talk to him directly?

I have the article in front of me. Re: Criticism of Anderson.

It starts and I quote.."One of the problems with criticism of Anderson is that it is in general ill-informed and lacks cohesion: Anderson is variously described as an outright liar, a bigot, racist, elitist, anti -semite: he wrote when a suffering geriatric confusion/forgetfullness/wishful thinking, or because he was desperate to claim a solution to the ripper mystery. But as we shall see when we examine some of these claims in greater depth, several of these suggestions to all intents and purpose cancel each other out"

It stikes me that Begg is simply using a literary tool of an imagined 'Devils Advocate' to make his point about Anderson. Indeed I have played Devils Advocate myself on these same points, over a pint.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Photocopies

...
But just to add that whoever did the first handwriting analysis made by Paul Begg, was clearly happy to give has opinion based on photocopies..
I admit I also find it odd, but the expert wouldn't have done so unless he thought he could...and he, after all, is the expert here, not you or I.
Pirate
...

Now let's be clear about this, shall we? Dr Dick Tottie (spelling?) who compared the photocopies for Paul did so at Paul's request. Unless Paul tells us exactly what he asked the Dr, such as 'Do you think you could take a look at a couple of photocopies, one being from a report in the official files that we know was written by Swanson, and the other the notes in the book, and let me know if you can say that both were written by Swanson?'; and to know what, exactly, the examiner replied, then it is difficult to say exactly what to make of it.

Paul Begg has, I believe, a letter from Dr Tottie and this has never been published, I have never seen it and I do not know how the good doctor worded his reply. He possibly did not realise that his pronouncement would be published and I am sure that he deserves no criticism. But, I believe, if he had realised that any great importance was going to attach to him giving his opinion on the writing, or that it was for publication, he would probably have insisted on seeing the originals of both. Being casually asked to assess two photocopy samples of handwriting and to give an opinion on whether they are in the same hand is a totally different matter to being asked to pronounce on something at a forensic level.

So 'Pirate' none of these things is quite as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Indeed, if you could persuade Paul to publish or show the letter from the examiner I am sure it would help us all. After all, Paul tells us, quite clearly in the A-Z, that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

[Jeff Leahy]

Now let's be clear about this, shall we? Dr Dick Tottie (spelling?) who compared the photocopies for Paul did so at Paul's request. Unless Paul tells us exactly what he asked the Dr, such as 'Do you think you could take a look at a couple of photocopies, one being from a report in the official files that we know was written by Swanson, and the other the notes in the book, and let me know if you can say that both were written by Swanson?'; and to know what, exactly, the examiner replied, then it is difficult to say exactly what to make of it.

Paul Begg has, I believe, a letter from Dr Tottie and this has never been published, I have never seen it and I do not know how the good doctor worded his reply. He possibly did not realise that his pronouncement would be published and I am sure that he deserves no criticism. But, I believe, if he had realised that any great importance was going to attach to him giving his opinion on the writing, or that it was for publication, he would probably have insisted on seeing the originals of both. Being casually asked to assess two photocopy samples of handwriting and to give an opinion on whether they are in the same hand is a totally different matter to being asked to pronounce on something at a forensic level.

So 'Pirate' none of these things is quite as straightforward as you seem to think they are. Indeed, if you could persuade Paul to publish or show the letter from the examiner I am sure it would help us all. After all, Paul tells us, quite clearly in the A-Z, that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

But did you not point out yourself that Dr Tottie (?) firstly examined the hand writing and came to the conclusion that it wasn't Swanson's as he had been sent the wrong sample... Then he was sent the correct sample and it was varified it as genuine?

Hardly a casual encounter, there must have been more than one correspondence? It seems to me that if he didnt feel this was a safe way of doing it...he wouldn't have done so....

And this is largely academic as Dr Davies seems to confirm its 'Probably' Swanson's hand writing anyway.

Have you tried asking Paul yourself? If Paul says its been confirmed as genuine by the Home Office document examiner, then it probably was..

All the Best

Pirate

[Chris]

So now we're being told that the fact he spotted that Paul Begg sent him the wrong handwriting sample proves something?

But what on earth could it prove, other than that he had eyes in his head? I think we could have guessed that from his occupation!

What are you actually trying to do on this thread, Jeff?

[Jeff Leahy]

So now we're being told that the fact he spotted that Paul Begg sent him the wrong handwriting sample proves something?

But what on earth could it prove, other than that he had eyes in his head? I think we could have guessed that from his occupation!

What are you actually trying to do on this thread, Jeff?

Absolutely nothing more than discuss the marginalia, calmly and politely.

Can I just make one thing absolutely clear just in case there is any doubt?

Pirate Jacks posts are his opinion and his wording alone. Yes I am friends with Paul, as I am a friend with a number of Ripperologists. I have sort and asked his opinions and advice on occasions, especially if I have been uncertain on certain FACTS.

However I am not and have never been a spokesman for Paul Begg. Paul chooses not to post on casebook but if you wish to ask him something directly you are welcome to do so, as I am.

I am not a mentor or acolyte, I am simply a student like everyone else with an interest in the case. Please if you have any requests for Paul Begg, then ask him yourself. He is available for comment and happy to do so. I am not and have never been a spokesman for Paul Begg. I havnt any hidden agenda I am not working on some master conspiracy.

I am simply, given the evidence, of firm belief that the Marginalia is genuine.

All the best

Pirate

[Chris]

Pirate Jacks posts are his opinion and his wording alone.

So you haven't posted under your name things that have been written by Paul Begg?