'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Stewart P Evans]

I have started this thread in order that any responses regarding the question of 'the Swanson marginalia' on the Ripperologist thread may be placed here rather than letting that thread get off topic.

It is interesting to note that the Jack the Ripper A-Z established the said 'marginalia' as almost sacrosanct and the authors of that book were about the only Ripper authorities to see the actual notes at the time of the centenary. They did such a good job that it was over ten years before the document was properly examined and some valid questions raised. N.B. To raise valid questions is not to accuse someone of fakery.

Some points made in the A-Z regarding this set of notes are as follows -

"Pencil notes made in Swanson's hand..."

"The book passed to Swanson's unmarried daughter on his death; she apparently never opened it."

"On her death, c. 1980, it passed to her nephew, Mr. Swanson's grandson, who tried unsuccessfully to have the marginalia published."

"In 1987 he made renewed attempts, and succeeded in having the notes printed in the Daily Telegraph."

"This strictly private and personal memorandum, written by a man who had retained all his faculties and had no reason to mislead anybody or anticipate that the notes would be remarked by anyone, must represent the truth as Swanson saw it in or about 1910."

"Their [the 'marginalia'] provenance is established beyond peradventure..."

"...and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

All these points made in the A-Z need to be closely examined.

[Ally]

Hiya Stewart,

I have many thoughts and comments on this topic, but I am only capable of so many thoughts in one day and I've used them all up. Plus I have to save them for podcast. I think this is a really interesting topic though and I am really looking forward to your rebuttal.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Stewart.
I continue to have a very high regard for Abberline"s views about JtR and quite frankly the fact that he quite obviously thought these claims made by Anderson/Swanson ,a lot of utter nonsense ,speaks volumes.He wasnt the only senior policeman to have thought so either.Will attend more to this thread later-it looks good.
Best
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr. E:

The primary effect on the community of Swanson's marginalia being found is that it corroborates Sir Robert Anderson's statements in the "Blackwoods Magazine" article and his autobiography on the Polish Jew suspect... and goes a step further,obviously,by naming that suspect.

It does not, however, indicate that Swanson was in attendence at the viewing of the suspect, nor does it verify that even Anderson was present. Anderson doesn't mention he was present either...which you knew,but perhaps some others didn't.

Therefore, your contention,as well as the other authorities you referred to on the Ripperologist Magazine thread, is primarily with the authenticity of the handwriting...is this correct?

In other words, if the handwriting on the marginalia could be definitely attributed to Donald Swanson in an impartial, non-partisan way, then it would still NOT be a "definitely ascertainable" fact that either Swanson or Anderson were present at the "Seaside Home" identification ( for want of a description, since you are not convinced it occurred at Hove as it is generally assumed ) since neither official states that they were...and in conclusion the Anderson "declaration" of the definitely ascertainable fact is quite possibly hearsay evidence?

I'm sure you have considered something along these lines...that SRA was merely told what occurred at the "identification"...and then he, in turn, shared with his colleague Swanson what he was told, however with only the surname of the suspect, not the first name jotted down in the marginalia.

If you would, please expand on any thoughts you have.

Thank ye,sor...

[Stewart P Evans]

Worth Noting

It is worth noting that two of the authors of the A-Z, Begg and Fido, accord very high value and veracity to Anderson's word. Despite having different preferred suspects the two authors base all their serious suspect theorising on Anderson's Polish Jew theory and anything connected thereto, such as the marginalia.

I, like many others, had not seen the actual notes in the Anderson book until I visited Jim Swanson whilst writing the Ultimate Sourcebook. Indeed, until then I, like everyone else, drew all my knowledge of the 'marginalia' from the writings of these two authors. I had never been in a position to make any valid comment on the notes as I had never seen them and had only photocopies of them. As I have stated the A-Z comments require close scrutiny.

First off they state "Pencil notes made in Swanson's hand." A definite statement of fact requiring no question to be asked.

Then they say "The book passed to Swanson's unmarried daughter on his death; she apparently never opened it." Obviously there was something to indicate that the daughter had not read the book or the notes.

"On her death, c. 1980, it passed to her nephew, Mr Swanson's grandson, who tried unsuccessfully to have the marginalia published." What date did he try to get it published? Who did he try to have it published by? [Apparently it was the News of the World] How much was he paid for this option? How did he go about it? e.g. Did the News of the World receive a photocopy of it? Or an article? Did they return what they were sent or did they not actually receive anything?

"In 1987 he made renewed attempts, and succeeded in having the notes printed in the Daily Telegraph." This was after the publication of Fido's book.

"This strictly private and personal memorandum, written by a man who had retained all his faculties and had no reason to mislead anybody or anticipate that the notes would be remarked [sic] by anyone, must represent the truth as Swanson saw it in or about 1910." A few presumptions there I think.

"Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure,..." Er, no, we have no continuity of evidence for the notes between when they were written c. 1910, and when they were presented to the public in 1987.

"...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner." No, he has given his opinion that it is Swanson's handwriting based on a view of some photocopies that were sent to him.

[Tom_Wescott]

In other words, if the handwriting on the marginalia could be definitely attributed to Donald Swanson in an impartial, non-partisan way, then it would still NOT be a "definitely ascertainable" fact that either Swanson or Anderson were present at the "Seaside Home" identification

Just to keep things fair and clear, I don't believe anyone - including Paul Begg - has ever suggested it was a fact that either Anderson or Swanson were present at the identification. The term 'definitely ascertained fact' was used by Anderson in qualifying the suspect as a Polish Jew. In Begg's new essay, he ponders the possibility that Anderson, Swanson, or both were present at the identification, but of course we'll never know.

This looks like it's going to be a lively debate...I wonder who will be posting Begg's e-mails for him since he can never be bothered to do it himself. No doubt Stewart's inbox is already blowing up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

Just to keep things fair and clear, I don't believe anyone - including Paul Begg - has ever suggested it was a fact that either Anderson or Swanson were present at the identification. The term 'definitely ascertained fact' was used by Anderson in qualifying the suspect as a Polish Jew. In Begg's new essay, he ponders the possibility that Anderson, Swanson, or both were present at the identification, but of course we'll never know.

And just to be clear on the issue of whether I was inferring that Mr. Begg or any modern author/researcher suggested anything of the sort, I wasn't. Mr. Begg's name nor anyone else's was mentioned or suggested to in the post I wrote for Mr. E.

It is easy to see how some might assume that SRA was present,since he states his views not once,but twice, with a degree of certainty.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Point

The point of this debate is to address questions that have been, or may be, raised about the status and nature of a document of historical significance, i.e. Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

The subject of what Anderson wrote, what Swanson wrote, and what they both meant has been discussed for years. Before the centenary Anderson's writings did not appear to carry the weight accorded to them in more modern times, and the 'Swanson marginalia' was not even known about.

Since the centenary things have become very different and the unfortunate influence of the 'diary' hoax has soured the field. Not only that, previously respected authors such as McCormick have been found to be very wanting in historical accuracy.

I have now seen a copy of Paul's article, but I have not read and analysed it and it would be unfair to comment too soon.

However, before doing so I should like to make a few things clear. I have known Martin and Paul for many years and have always enjoyed their company and their intelligent debating skills and undoubted knowledge. Of course there are things we disagree about - that is natural and as it should be. Any 'attacks' that I may make on their reasoning, interpretation and previous writing on the subject are not personal, but are all about the various aspects of the case affected by what has been written. They are influential people in this field.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hefty Piece of Work

Paul's article in the latest issue of Ripperologist is a hefty piece of work and requires careful reading and consideration. It will probably be best to address it page by page.

I fully expected a lengthy response to appear from Paul to the comments and published words that have been published on Anderson and the 'marginalia' over the past few years. He rightly notes at the start of his article that Anderson's claim that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' was known 'is extraordinary, to say the least' and that he 'is completely unsupported by any other informed contemporary source' other than Swanson's 'tacit support' in the 'marginalia.'

And here is why the 'marginalia' is so important, both Paul and Martin have used it to bolster Anderson's word and have used it as corroboration for what Anderson said, despite minor discrepancies. As I have pointed out, Anderson may have written in his book what Swanson had told him and therefore Swanson may have been merely correcting (as he saw it) and adding to what Anderson wrote rather than Anderson being a prime source that Swanson was separately adding to. The mere fact that what Anderson wrote, and what Swanson appears to have scribbled in his book, is totally unsupported by any of their peers and by any contemporary source should be worrying enough in itself.

Paul states that over recent years 'some small doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of the marginalia and then comments, curiously, that 'there seems little reason for this.' I thought the reasons for questioning the 'marginalia' are rather obvious, as I have pointed out above, and these questions, as I have repeatedly stated, should have been answered back in 1987-88 when they could have been properly addressed and answered. It may be that now is too late.

Paul then goes on, oddly, to compare the 'marginalia' to the photograph of George Lusk and the photograph of Annie and John Chapman, both of which have 'simply been accepted.' Well, of course they have, they both came from descendants of those people and are simple, obvious photographs of the time. They really should not be compared to the 'marginalia' which is of a totally different nature. He then points out that 'nobody authenticated the handwritten memoirs of Inspector Abberline relating to his time at Monte Carlo casinos.' Well of course they haven't, no grand or sensational claims have ever been made in relation to these 'memoirs', but you can bet your bottom dollar that had they contained the sensational revelation of the identity of Jack the Ripper they would have come under the closest scrutiny and the most heated debate. A similar comparison is also made with the typewritten memoirs of James Monro and 'the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten memorandum.' But, here again, the same applies and the 'Abeconway notes' have never been seen outside of the illustrious circles of the family, and, to a large extent, have been confirmed by Macnaghten's handwritten 7 page report which has always been in the official files. Again, poor comparisons.

I shall make further posts regarding Paul's article later.

[Stewart P Evans]

Did Not See

I did not see the 'Swanson marginalia' 'in the flesh' until July 2000, when I visited Jim Swanson, Donald Swanson's grandson, at his home near Guildford in Surrey. I went with Keith Skinner.

The idea was to photograph the 'marginalia' and the other Swanson ephemera prior to completion of our book The Ultimate. The importance of Swanson and his material cannot be gainsaid and it was also great to meet Jim, whom I had seen before only in a TV documentary. It is impossible, I think, to be fully au fait with any subject until the original sources and material have been accessed, rather than seen or obtained 'second hand.' It is all very well to be an authority on a subject, but such a status cannot be truly achieved by merely using secondary sources. Prime source material must be accessed.

The fact that I had always accepted all that I knew about the 'marginalia' from the secondary sources available to me thus far resulted in great surprise for me when I easily identified the fact that the marginalia on page 138 of the book differed from the notes on the rear free endpaper, not only in the writing itself to a degree, but also that a different pencil had been used for the endpaper notes. The fact that the endpaper notes commence "continuing from page 138..." had always suggested to me, rightly or wrongly, that they had been written on the same occasion.

Now this disturbed me a little as in the early 1990s another leading Ripper authority had said to me that he was less than happy with the endpaper notes in Swanson's copy of the Anderson book, despite the fact that he had only a photocopy. In the 1996 edition the authors of the A-Z had stated "Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded" (for which see Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved by Paul Harrison, London, Hale, 1991, pp. 137-138).

For here I was confronted with apparent discrepancies in the marginalia/notes in the Anderson book that had gone apparently without note or comment over ten years earlier, and despite being seen by other Ripper authorities. These points should have been noted and addressed in 1988. Of course I considered the obvious innocent explanation that Swanson himself could have used two different pencils and that the differences in the two sets of handwriting could be accounted for by the fact that the marginal notes were more cramped as they were written where there was limited space whereas the endpaper provided a free page. But, still, they should have been noted and addressed years earlier. After all they were plain to see to the objective observer.

So here, then, is the background to the questioning of the Swanson annotations. fair questions I believe, yet when I first raised them I was vigorously attacked by the supporters of the Anderson/Swanson theorising, to the degree that it was even suggested that I was committing a libel! Far from it, I am merely a seeker of the truth and historical accuracy so far as is possible. And I had never previously seen any need to question the 'marginalia.'

When the Swanson copy of the Anderson book was recently donated to the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard by the Swanson family the points I had raised were obviously considered. As Paul points out in his essay, Dr Christopher Davis of the Forensic Science Service examined the notes in the book. His report, if he compiled one, has never been published. However, he was quoted as saying [inter alia] that 'two pencils were used' and that 'the handwriting of the endpaper notes is slightly different from the earlier marginalia.' He thus confirmed my own conclusions fully. Not only that he was far from being so comprehensively assured about the marginalia as the authors of the A-Z were, nor as so fully supportive of the writing being that of Swanson as the expert consulted over ten years earlier apparently was.

Indeed, Dr Davis noted that "it [the book] 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." Incredible, not only was he confirming the questions I had first raised, he was also adding the further worrying element that the endpaper notes had been added years later. So why hadn't these points been addressed all those years earlier when the book was in the hands of Paul Begg and he had consulted his handwriting expert? Dr Davis was far from totally supportive of the 'marginalia'/notes using such terms as "...to suggest that it probably was Swanson's writing..." despite the 'small differences.' These, he suggested, "could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration.", adding the caveat that "we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation." He also noted that "the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors." He concluded "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." How right he is. [Emphasis mine].

So in the early pronouncement on the 'marginalia' we have Paul Begg's handwriting expert and the A-Z giving it a glowing report that allows for no questioning, merely blind acceptance, whilst the modern report raises questions, not to say doubts, and encourages further debate. I'm sorry, but the A-Z stand on the 'marginalia' is just not acceptable.

[Monty]

Interesting thread Stewart,

One I shall be following for obvious reasons.

Monty

[harry]

The one thing I find interesting,is that the daughter is reported to have never opened the book.Is that a statement she made,or was it a comment from someone else?

[Stewart P Evans]

Ripper Studies

Ripper studies have now achieved a status and 'respectability' that they never enjoyed in past years. They have become an area of interest for academics and recognised historians.

In the 'good old days' the subject of 'Jack the Ripper' was of little historical significance and was a sensational subject best suited to hack writers who would be guaranteed publication if they could come up with a new Ripper story, suspect, or angle. The Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory and the reams written about it did little to enhance the subject for serious students but did have the great side effect of bringing hoards of eager new readers. In short, it made money and sold books to the great unwashed (which included me although I did wash regularly). The seven books that were published in 1987 left me, already with 25 years of Ripper reading and research behind me, with a sense of overkill and bemusement. It was obvious that some 'jobbing' authors were jumping aboard the Ripper bandwagon in order to get a book published.

The Stephen Knight phenomenon had shown that there was money to be made and that a Ripper book could become a worldwide best-seller. There was hope. I'd had enough, I embarked on a 'Ripperological hiatus'. In those heady days critics of hot theories were largely ignored in the public arena and very little common sense was being shown. One or two good books had appeared, amongst these were those by Don Rumbelow and Paul Begg to name but two.

[Nothing to see]

Ripper studies have now achieved a status and 'respectability' that they never enjoyed in past years. They have become an area of interest for academics and recognised historians.

In the 'good old days' the subject of 'Jack the Ripper' was of little historical significance and was a sensational subject best suited to hack writers who would be guaranteed publication if they could come up with a new Ripper story, suspect, or angle. The Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory and the reams written about it did little to enhance the subject for serious students but did have the great side effect of bringing hoards of eager new readers. In short, it made money and sold books to the great unwashed (which included me although I did wash regularly). The seven books that were published in 1987 left me, already with 25 years of Ripper reading and research behind me, with a sense of overkill and bemusement. It was obvious that some 'jobbing' authors were jumping aboard the Ripper bandwagon in order to get a book published.

The Stephen Knight phenomenon had shown that there was money to be made and that a Ripper book could become a worldwide best-seller. There was hope. I'd had enough, I embarked on a 'Ripperological hiatus'. In those heady days critics of hot theories were largely ignored in the public arena and very little common sense was being shown. One or two good books had appeared, amongst these were those by Don Rumbelow and Paul Begg to name but two.

OK. This is too much for me. Man, I buy your books! You're on here posting.
I'm not gonna reply. Just savor the moment. I'll be back later.

[Stewart P Evans]

To Return

To return to Paul's article, the next section seeks to redress the balance, to minimise the objections raised and to attempt to return the 'marginalia' to its former unchallenged status. First he simplifies the caveats raised and emphasises the statement that 'the writer was most likely to be Swanson'. But 'most likely' is a long way from the A-Z's unequivocal claim that 'the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's...' It is a damage limitation exercise.

He then reduces the idea that the handwriting was not Swanson's to a 'remote possibility' and is 'a consideration of little more than academic interest.' Really? We shall see. But it is, at least, a step removed from his previous claim that the fact that the writing was Swanson's was confirmed and beyond question. Paul is very clever with words and it is necessary to examine them closely and to seek meaning and motive for what he says. His is also adept at swinging the gist of the matter off course and to embarking on side issues. We really must be exact and to the point. We must also avoid smokescreens and tangential discussion that might be irrelevant.

He says that the 'marginalia' identifies 'Kosminski' as Anderson's suspect, and that this name was unknown until the discovery of Macnaghten's material. The first point is that it is the endpaper notes that identify the name 'Kosminski', and not the 'marginalia.' I am aware that 'marginalia' has been used as a blanket term to describe all the annotations, but I do feel that the distinction should be made.

While it is true that the name was not known until Macnaghten's material emerged, the Polish Jew suspect, complete with Macnaghten's description of him, had been around since 1898. I had always associated this Polish Jew suspect as one and the same as Anderson's Polish Jew; I had been in possession of the two sources since the late 1960s. This seemed obvious to me and if you had these two sources, i.e. Griffiths's 1898 book and Anderson's 1910 summary they stood side by side as being one and the same. Of course I never published this and the credit for the first publication of this idea must be accorded to Martin Fido.

Paul goes on to state that "if the marginalia is not authentic in whole or part then it's unlikely to have been created prior to the first public appearance of the name 'Kosminski' in print" which was in Cullen's 1965 book. This a step forward as there was a time when Paul would not have even considered the possibility of the 'whole or part' of the 'marginalia' not being genuine. I wouldn't argue with that. He then goes on to suggest that anyone trying to identify Anderson's suspect 'would probably' 'have turned to Rumbelow' as the most readily available source. Be that as it may, I'm afraid that I turned to Griffiths and Anderson many years before that to identify the Polish Jew, albeit sans the name.

Paul also notes that a 1987 hoaxer "is likely to have written 'Aaron Kosminski' or maybe Fido's preferred candidate for Anderson's suspect, David Cohen." Here he is getting to the nitty-gritty, as he is zeroing in on the period between which Fido's book appeared (naming Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen) and the publication of the 'marginalia' in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks later, and after Jim Swanson read Fido's book. This is why information on the earlier attempt to publish with the News of the World is so important. When exactly was this and what were the exact circumstances. That should have been established back in 1988. Apparently it wasn't.

But I cannot agree that such a person would have readily resorted to Martin Fido's Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen. First, as Paul points out, the single name 'Kosminski' had been around since 1965 in Macnaghten's report and, with all due respect, there is no evidence that David Cohen was even a police suspect. Cohen is Fido's theory and his alone.

I must make it clear here that I am not making accusations of fakery, I am attempting to establish the facts. I should be only too pleased if the questions surrounding the 'marginalia' could be resolved and that we could happily accept all that it says without question. But, it should be noted, all the inconsistencies, bad grammar and sensational revelation about 'The Seaside Home' are carried on the rear free endpaper of the book and not in the marginalia.