'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

To date nobody has answered Stewart"s very important question about the exact year and month,that Swanson"s grandson went to the "News of The World" newspaper, to sell his story about his freshly found evidence about the identity of Jack the Ripper---viz the margin and end notes where Swanson " appears" to have "named" the Ripper some 75 years previously and which nobody in the Swanson family had ever before set eyes upon!

Of course, it may be that no one is now in a position to give an answer to that question.

The best clue to the date that I've seen was in a post by Martin Fido in January 2006:
"When Jim Swanson and his brother first acquired their grandfather's copy of Anderson's memoirs and saw the marginalia they immediately recognized the public interest, and offered the information for sale to the News of the World. A reporter took details and they were paid a reasonable fee for the time - something like seventy-five pounds if I remember aright. Shortly after that N o W changed owners or editor, and the new regime didn't use the material."

This apparently refers to the replacement of David Montgomery as editor with Wendy Henry, which - as far as I can determine from online sources - coincided with the acquisition of the Today newspaper by Rupert Murdoch at the beginning of July 1987. If that's correct it would place the Swansons' approach to the News of the World in or before June 1987 - presumably not too long before, if they attributed the newspaper's failure to use the material to the change of editors.

[Natalie Severn]

To date nobody has answered Stewart"s very important question about the exact year and month,that Swanson"s grandson went to the "News of The World" newspaper, to sell his story about his freshly found evidence about the identity of Jack the Ripper---viz the margin and end notes where Swanson " appears" to have "named" the Ripper some 75 years previously and which nobody in the Swanson family had ever before set eyes upon!
Given that this happened to coincide with a score of other Jack the Ripper ," Centenary Scoops" it may actually have been difficult for "The News of the World" to spot the genuine article ,especially when there appear to have been quite a queue of people claiming different identities for Jack the Ripper.
Also,given the unprecedented chicanery that went on concerning Jack"s "identity " at this time, most famously concerning the Maybrick Diary and its original owner,it may just be the News of The World"s legal experts were a bit overwhelmed and over- guarded about the whole matter.
But could we possibly have a few "specific" answers to Stewarts eminently reasonable "specific"questions rather than yet more unproven and muddled assertions?
Thanks

[Nothing to see]

I'm not a duck hunter. I'll leave you to enjoy.

[Jeff Leahy]

OK I'd bet other people's money. But, you know, say Swanson's marg are by someone else. It really limits the options for who to rely on. By the guys who were there. If he's wrong, then McNaughton's wrong?

Now I know they are only opinions. But they were there. So, who do you turn to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_O7yn0k8Fw&feature=related

The provenance of the marginalia is excellent. No one has ever come up with a credible explanation of how or by whom it might have been forged. What we have in the marginalia is something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck….

If someone wishes to believe we are dealing with a pink elephant, I guess they have the right to do so.

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

OK I'd bet other people's money. But, you know, say Swanson's marg are by someone else. It really limits the options for who to rely on. By the guys who were there. If he's wrong, then McNaughton's wrong?

Now I know they are only opinions. But they were there. So, who do you turn to?

[Jeff Leahy]

Well thanks for replying. Is this a high probability, mid level or forget it? IYO.

Its a 'I'd bet my house on it' but not a 'I'd bet my childrens life on it"

P

[Nothing to see]

Well thanks for replying. Is this a high probability, mid level or forget it? IYO.

[Jeff Leahy]

OK I'm lost in all of this. Who the hell is the 'mentor'? There are obviously discussions going on here I have no idea of.

Swanson wrote the marginalia. Yes or no.

I think yes, until someone can prove to me I'm wrong.

The Mentor is Paul Begg..and I havn't seen Paul for two weeks or spoken since last friday.

The probability is that Swanson wrote the marginalia, as stated by the expert who examined it.

Pirate

The question has and was raised..."the dog barks the wind blows and the caravan moves on"

[Stewart P Evans]

Expert

... the probability would appear to be that the end notes were writen by Donald Swanson.
Pirate

I don't think that I would disagree with that. But...

Previous authorities, notably the authors of the A-Z, have not thought it to be a probability - they have declared it to be definitely Swanson's handwriting, bolstering this declaration with "...and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

Sorry to be repetitive but this needs to be hammered home the damage done is in the A-Z, a standard Ripper reference work. Again, to repeat, the most important thing is that an expert has now stated that the endpaper notes were written "some years later" which raises the question of the reliability of the second set of notes. Not my words - but the words of an expert.

[Nothing to see]

OK I'm lost in all of this. Who the hell is the 'mentor'? There are obviously discussions going on here I have no idea of.

Swanson wrote the marginalia. Yes or no.

I think yes, until someone can prove to me I'm wrong.

[Stewart P Evans]

Questions

As I stated I have no problem with anyone questioning the authenticity of the marginalia, indeed if the time money and opportunity were ever afforded me, I’d be most interested in more expert analysis of the marginalia.
However I would be most surprised if it told us anything we didn’t already know.
I therefore view any suggestion of it being ‘Forged’ as a large red herring. Pirate

This, of course, ignores the other point that Dr Christopher Davis makes - "...which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later." A very valid point.

Whilst you are in touch with your mentor you could, perhaps, pose three questions that have yet to be answered. 1. "Were these discrepancies in the pencilled annotations noticed when the book was first examined in 1988?" and 2. "If they were, why weren't they addressed and made public at that time." or 3. "Were they simply ignored?"

[Chris]

As I stated I have no problem with anyone questioning the authenticity of the marginalia ...

That's good to hear. But if you look back at your previous posts you'll understand why people have got a different impression. For example, only yesterday:
"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."

[Jeff Leahy]

What Stewart wrote was that "As some have noted there is a possibility that the endpaper notes may have been written by someone other than Donald Swanson."
[my emphasis]

As a matter of fact, I share your view that the probability is that the annotations were all written by Swanson. In fact I'd say it was a very strong probability.

Nevertheless, Davies raised the possibility that not all of them were. I think what people object to is the misleading claim that there is no doubt at all about the matter, that their genuineness has been established "beyond peradventure" and so on - and that there is no place for discussion of the issue.

Hi Chris

As I stated I have no problem with anyone questioning the authenticity of the marginalia, indeed if the time money and opportunity were ever afforded me, I’d be most interested in more expert analysis of the marginalia.

However I would be most surprised if it told us anything we didn’t already know.

I therefore view any suggestion of it being ‘Forged’ as a large red herring. Especially when there are so many more interesting arguments/debates to be had about Anderson’s ‘Polish Jew theory’.

Again thanks for your time and observations

Pirate

[Chris]

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).

I suppose this isn't the place to discuss it, but it seems so pointless to go to such lengths in twisting the meaning of what Anderson said in one place, when he was perfectly clear elsewhere. For example (in 1912), "... there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal". Obviously he was claiming that the police had definitely ascertained not only the religion but the identity of the murderer.

[Chris]

I'm aware of this Chris and it clearly states: "It probably was Swanson's writing". "It is most likely to be Swanson."

So until someone finds an expert willing to contradict that statement, the probability would appear to be that the end notes were writen by Donald Swanson.

What Stewart wrote was that "As some have noted there is a possibility that the endpaper notes may have been written by someone other than Donald Swanson."
[my emphasis]

As a matter of fact, I share your view that the probability is that the annotations were all written by Swanson. In fact I'd say it was a very strong probability.

Nevertheless, Davies raised the possibility that not all of them were. I think what people object to is the misleading claim that there is no doubt at all about the matter, that their genuineness has been established "beyond peradventure" and so on - and that there is no place for discussion of the issue.