'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Tom_Wescott]

Good point, Chris. Thanks for catching that. I'd say that makes it even less likely a family member later added to Swanson's recollections.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

It would seem that in the unlikely turn that Swanson himself did not write the endpaper notes, that someone in his family did as a way of elaboration, based upon what Swanson had told them. In this case, it wouldn't qualify as a 'hoax' and Jim Swanson would be in the clear.

I'm not saying the endpaper note is a hoax or forgery. But if you put someone else's initials to something that does make it a hoax or forgery, doesn't it?

Chris

[Monty]

Indeed Chris,

My memory is a little sketchy over this matter but isnt it alleged that the 'added' notes were made with a more modern pencil?

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Doesnt they type of pencil used have a baring on this?

Monty

Is it the contention that the type of pencil used was only in use at a certain time?

Chris

[Monty]

Doesnt they type of pencil used have a baring on this?

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

So, I have been thinking about this and a couple of thoughts have occurred to me. I really do not understand how someone can look at a photo of two handwriting samples and determine that one was written years after the first. I am sure that this might be possible, and it is more to a defect in my understanding that I don't see it, but until I get a satisfactory explanation as to precisely HOW this is possible, I am going to choose to dismiss the idea that the marginalia containing the word Kosminski has definitively been proved to have been written years after the other marginalia.

Hi Ally

I believe the assessment of the second (endpaper) notation having been written "years later" was made on the basis that the writing does not appear to be as neatly written as the marginalia on page 138, the rougher hand being accounted for by the passage of years.

On the other hand, it seems a bit odd to write, "Continuing from page 138" when you are doing it years later and not directly following the time you made the first notation. Wouldn't it be more logical to say, "As I wrote on page 138" or something similar?

Another strange aspect, discussed before, I believe, is why you would initial with your own initials "D.S.S." notations that you are making for yourself? Except of course that Swanson was used to making the annotation "D.S.S." on official documents in this and other cases when they came across his desk, as students of the case well know.

All the best

Chris

[Ally]

So, I have been thinking about this and a couple of thoughts have occurred to me. I really do not understand how someone can look at a photo of two handwriting samples and determine that one was written years after the first. I am sure that this might be possible, and it is more to a defect in my understanding that I don't see it, but until I get a satisfactory explanation as to precisely HOW this is possible, I am going to choose to dismiss the idea that the marginalia containing the word Kosminski has definitively been proved to have been written years after the other marginalia.

My question is this: how much marginalia did the book contain? Was it limited to the pages we know about that led to the kosminski identification? Or was it littered with marginalia throughout the book? And if so, was there any other instance where the second pencil was used? Or was the only time the second pencil was used was in the tacked on identification of kosminski?

[jason_c]

In his 1910 book The Lighter Side of My Official Life, Anderson states (pp. 138-139) –

“Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer. I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute.”

These two paragraphs must be read in conjunction in order to appreciate the proper meaning of the author with regard to his suspect. In the first paragraph he clearly states ‘the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him…’ Thus Anderson is saying that the actual murderer (i.e. Jack the Ripper) was positively identified by a witness. In the second paragraph Anderson states that ‘he’, i.e. the identified murderer, was a Polish Jew, ‘a definitely ascertained fact.’

What Paul Begg said in his 1988 book was that Anderson ‘…said that the Ripper’s identity was a definitely ascertained fact.’ Fair enough, you may think. As shown above the two paragraphs, of necessity, must be linked to establish the meaning. And for many years no one disagreed. But no, what Begg is now saying, both in his book The Facts and in the present Ripperologist article, is that “It wasn’t a ‘definitely ascertained fact’ that the suspect was Jack the Ripper, it was a definitely ascertained fact he was a Jew!” (I just love the triumphant exclamation mark).

Confused? Well you might be, so am I. I have heard of exercises in semantics but this one takes the biscuit. To his credit Begg admits (in The Facts) that he 'misunderstood' in his 1988 book and states that “it has been forcibly pointed out, however, that a more sensible contextual interpretation is that Anderson meant it was ‘a definitely ascertained fact’ that the suspect was a Polish Jew. I now favour this interpretation, but acknowledge that ambiguity still exists. Believing that the suspect was Jack the Ripper, Anderson may still have intended his words to mean that it was ‘a definitely ascertained fact’ that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew.” I wonder who was doing the ‘forcible’ pointing out?

I won’t go into it here but the idea of this is based on the aggressive ‘Mentor’ articles in the Jewish Chronicle discovered by Nick Connell in 1999. What is interesting though is the gradual development of this theme in the current Ripperologist article (page 29). Begg drops the admission that he originally ‘misunderstood’ the words and also any question of ambiguity. Here he uses this interpretation of Anderson’s words to dismiss the idea proposed by others (including me) that what was a mere theory in 1895, as per the Griffiths Windsor Magazine article (first discovered by Melvin Harris), became, over the course of the years, the ‘definitely ascertained fact’ of 1910. Begg sees this as ‘wildly wrong’ and ‘how else [would] Major Griffiths have described Anderson’s thinking.’? Other than calling it ‘a theory’. After all, such a thing is a mere theory ‘until a conviction had been gained in a court.’ So Anderson was right after all and he did not say that it was a ‘definitely ascertained fact’ that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. By now our readers’ collective brains should be hurting.

What Griffiths said in the 1895 piece was “He [Anderson] has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.” Well, that certainly is a long way off what was being claimed for Anderson’s suspect in 1910. And if Anderson had told Griffiths that a witness had positively identified the murderer I am sure that Griffiths would have worded it differently, not forgetting that he expanded it all in 1898 and seemed to prefer the 'drowned doctor' as a suspect to the 'Polish Jew'. And yes, you can have definite identification without a conviction.

But don’t forget folks, Anderson never said that the identity of the Ripper was ‘a definitely ascertained fact.’ And don’t you forget it.

With regards to Anderson's theory or fact I believe the time frame is relevant.

Anderson having a theory in 1895 was far less controversial than Anderson having a definately ascertained fact. Most of the major players were still in positions of authority. If Anderson declared it as fact then he would have been under pressure from press, public, Home Office officials etc to give details of this fact. Having a simple "theory" allowed him plenty of leeway in 1895.

[Ally]

Or you could simply turn to page 351 of the FACTS by Paul Begg where he makes this quite clear: Quote 'On the end-paper Swanson Wrote.'

And that would be relevant to Roy's question if "The Facts" had been written in 1990 but it was in fact written in 2004, several years after the marginalia had been discovered and had been entered into the mindset as irrefutable.

So the question is, why wasn't the differences in pencil and writing brought to light when the information about the marginalia was first published and the discrepancies only mentioned after other people had gotten a gander and began making inquiries?

[c.d.]

If somebody was deliberately going to create a hoax, doesn't it seem reasonable that they would attempt to make money from it? But that is not the case here, right?

c.d.

[Chris]

Excellent work! Was that the NoW's first editorial change of the 80's?

No, it wasn't. According to Wikipedia Montgomery had been editor for only two years, and his two predecessors had similarly short tenures.

So it is also possible that this took place in 1985 or earlier. But in any case if the account relayed by Martin Fido is accurate, we can say it was in or before June 1987.

[Jeff Leahy]

Stewart, I understand exactly what you are driving at. Thank you for taking the time to point it out to us. We now know exactly what the Swanson Marginalia is. Two different pieces of writing, in two different pencils, done at two different times, with slight differences in the handwriting. Why didn't Paul Begg say that all those years? Only he can answer that.

Roy

Or you could simply turn to page 351 of the FACTS by Paul Begg where he makes this quite clear: Quote 'On the end-paper Swanson Wrote.'

As for the different pencils it is well known and has been in the public domain for some time.

Yours Pirate

I guess Mentor is better than Sven Garley, but they are not my words.

[Roy Corduroy]

Stewart, I understand exactly what you are driving at. Thank you for taking the time to point it out to us. We now know exactly what the Swanson Marginalia is. Two different pieces of writing, in two different pencils, done at two different times, with slight differences in the handwriting. Why didn't Paul Begg say that all those years? Only he can answer that.

But as a new person, I can start fresh, with the latest, most up-to-date analysis. You, Paul in his recent article and everyone agrees the circumstances of the so-called suspect ID are elusive. Your article Kosminski and the Seaside Home, a brilliant piece of work, maybe came nearest to working through the inconsistencies. Absent that, in your latest book you ponder if it was not simply a confusion with the purported Sadler ID.

Thanks for all the "donkey years" you have put in on it. After all, it's not your suspect theory. Yet all you have ever tried to do is help.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Davies' findings, how is it he's able to tell that the endpaper writing was written 'years later'?

If it was written years later, but by someone educated during the same time as Swanson, what male of similar age would have had access to the book?

Is it possible to compare the handwriting of other male members of the family, such as Swanson's son-in-law and perhaps Jim Swanson?

It would seem that in the unlikely turn that Swanson himself did not write the endpaper notes, that someone in his family did as a way of elaboration, based upon what Swanson had told them. In this case, it wouldn't qualify as a 'hoax' and Jim Swanson would be in the clear.

So who else might it have been if not Swanson or his grandson?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

Excellent work! Was that the NoW's first editorial change of the 80's?

Nothing To See,

While Pirate Jack's mentor may be Paul Begg, the 'Mentor' who participated in 'aggressive exchange' with Anderson was the editor of the Jewish Chronicle.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott