'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Jeff Leahy]

Some may be more or less accepting of the Marginalia than others, Jeff - however, I doubt that anyone can state with certainty that Swanson authored them. Not to the point of declaring it a "fact", at any rate.

Then we must question most of the literature and artefacts that we base our knowledge of history upon.

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Then we must question most of the literature and artefacts that we base our knowledge of history upon.

Quite so, Jeff - the same applies to all such documents.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm not against that Sam, There's just going to be lots of work to get done...the Maybrick Diary has a lot to answer for...

P

Good night chaps

[harry]

It is said the book passed to Swanson's daughter on his death,and she apparently never opened it.I wonder on what information this is based(the not reading it)? It must have been in her possession many years, technically she had ownership it being passed to her,and I just wonder whether any claim is also made of it not being out of her possession,during the whole time of ownership.
Funny that it should resemble the case of a diary that was passed on but never read.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nonsense

Yes we can all agree with that Natalie. 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.
Pirate

What is this supposed to mean? Are you not able to read and internalise what has been mulled over many times? Have you ever seen the 'marginalia'?

The book with the annotations was seen by only a few Ripper authorities back in 1988, the authors of the A-Z. For over ten years everything that was known about the book was based upon what they said. We were told that 'the Home Office document examiner' had confirmed the handwriting as Swanson's. Fine no obvious reason to query that. What was not pointed out was that the examination was unsatisfactory in that the examiner had seen only photocopies. But for years the 'marginalia' was accepted in the way it had been presented to the world and there appeared to be no reason to query that.

Hoever, in fact, two different pencils had been used for the annotations, the internal marginalia and the endpaper notes. Also the writing on the endpaper differed slightly from that on page 138. This was either not noticed by those who saw the book or it was noticed and was ignored. Either way, this is unsatisfactory. A great deal was made of the 'marginalia' at the time of the centenary, as the Polish Jew suspect came to the fore and Paul Begg became the first author to publish it in his 1988 book.

In 1991 a suggestion was made by Ripper author Paul Harrison that the 'marginalia' might not be genuine. This was dismissed out of hand in the A-Z as 'completely unfounded'. At least two other Ripper authorities were not totally satisfied with the 'marginalia' but said nothing. I took the view that the 'marginalia' must be genuine, but noted that no one, other than those in 1988, had seen the 'marginalia'.

I saw the 'marginalia' in 2000 which is when I noted the problems with the pencil writing. My conclusions were subsequently confirmed and enlarged upon when the book was recently seen, after being gifted to the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard, by Dr Christopher Davis. So my observations about the notes were vindicated, and I still maintain that it was right to let the wider Ripper community know of these problems. When I did certain authors were appalled that I was, apparently, casting doubt upon the authenticity of these 'sacrosanct' scribbles.

However, the exact nature of these annotations is crucial to their correct interpretation. As some have noted there is a possibility that the endpaper notes may have been written by someone other than Donald Swanson. It has also been stated that they were made 'some years later' (i.e. after the marginalia) which is the reason for the difference in the handwriting. This, of course, means that Swanson added them as a sort of afterthought much later when his faculties and his memory would not have been so good.

Either way all this is very important. Are you saying that it should be missed or ignored, as it was in 1988? As usual you appear to be talking ill-informed nonsense. Please explain what you mean by "What worries some people [exactly who?] 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?"

So who are "some people have taken that position" you refer to? And if these 'people' are questioning its authenticity, as you say, how can you go on to say "no one, as far as I understand, is questioning as being authentic?" You talk in riddles man. You end by saying "The Marginalia is, in Fact, written by Swanson." Really? Some sort of expert are you? Or is someone else telling you that. With your limited knowledge I find it difficult to believe that you are able to quote such a thing as fact.

If you are going to make insinuations and talk nonsense please stay out of these debates.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sounds like...

Then we must question most of the literature and artefacts that we base our knowledge of history upon.
Pirate

Sounds like your mentor talking here.

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Idea

I'm not against that Sam, There's just going to be lots of work to get done...the Maybrick Diary has a lot to answer for...
P
Good night chaps

What a good idea! Let's blame everything on the 'diary'.

[Chris]

Then we must question most of the literature and artefacts that we base our knowledge of history upon.

Surely that goes without saying.

In many cases the possibility that documents are fakes won't detain us long, but there is always the possibility of error or of deliberate misinformation.

[Jeff Leahy]

As some have noted there is a possibility that the endpaper notes may have been written by someone other than Donald Swanson. I

Hi Stewart

Is it possible to be more precise about this statement, who are the ‘some have noted’, as this is not my understanding. Or at least, that a hand writing expert has questioned the authenticity of the Marginalia?

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

I don't know if Swanson's notes are authentic or not. I always thought they were but if , say, they're not written by Swanson, how much does this change the way suspects for Jack would be looked at? By us, now, reading what these guys wrote 120 years ago.

OK, say Swanson didn't write anything and the notes were written by someone else. That still leaves McNaughton. I know he's not 'the' authority but...He had his opinions, ill informed, whatever. But he was there 120 years ago. We weren't.

Anyway, IMO.

[Chris]

Is it possible to be more precise about this statement, who are the ‘some have noted’, as this is not my understanding. Or at least, that a hand writing expert has questioned the authenticity of the Marginalia?

Christopher Davies, the document examiner from the Forensic Science Service, raised the possibility that the notes on the end paper were not written by 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.”

[Jeff Leahy]

Christopher Davies, the document examiner from the Forensic Science Service, raised the possibility that the notes on the end paper were not written by 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.”

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.

Thanks and all the best

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

'A Definitely Ascertained Fact'

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thought

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

I thought you said, in post #28, "The Marginalia is, in Fact, written by Swanson."?

My, my, it is hard work getting you old boys to be more accurate with what you say.

[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.