'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Natalie Severn]

Minion: a person who,in order to please,behaves like a slave [to Ap] and receives special favours !

If you mean thats me then you are wrong, Monty. AP is an iconoclast---thats good enough for me!
Anyway back to the thread"s purpose.......

[Stewart P Evans]

Meeting Jim Swanson

From an essay I wrote almost nine years ago -

"We had hardly settled in our chairs when an elderly gentleman with a stick entered from the corridor behind Keith's chair. I immediately recognised him as Mr Swanson and stood up and said, "Hello Mr Swanson." He was a lot shorter than I had imagined him to be, only 5' 6" or so tall. We shook hands and Keith and I made our preliminary introductions. Our host then took us down the corridor and into an old fashioned lift [elevator to our US readers] which was almost filled with the three of us. We went up a couple of floors and exited into a sunlit, narrow corridor at the end of which we were taken into the Swansons' small, cosy apartment. We were greeted by Mrs Swanson, whom we found to be very charming and alert, which belied her 88 years.
We told Mr Swanson of our pending book on the Ripper case, and he said something about 'yet another book on the subject.' We said that it was of continuing interest and that it was still a great mystery. He said that it was not a mystery, as we knew, and indicated his grandfather's copy of The Lighter Side of my Official Life. He said, "My grandfather knew who it was." This was interesting as he stated that he had no real interest in 'Jack the Ripper' but was amused by all the fuss, especially the publicity he received in 1987 when the marginalia was first published. He also said that the book was insured in the amount of £7,000...
On the floor, leaning in an orderly row, were Mr Swanson's grandfather's books, which included, as well as the volume already referred to, one of Anderson's theological books, Anderson's Criminals and Crime, Anderson's biography (in dustwrapper), Eddie Guerin's Crime, and Sweeney's When I Was at Scotland Yard. At the rear of the row of books was a very old bound scrapbook containing early cuttings on Swanson's cases, all pre-Ripper, in fact from the 1870s to 1880. In front of these was a tin containing photographs and a small pile of documents..."

[jmenges]

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.

Perhaps the difference in handwriting had to do with motion. He may have scripted the second part while traveling in cab or carriage.

One of the most noticeable things about handwriting changes are those that are caused by illness or old age. So if someone aged significantly between writing these two samples this could be visibly discernable in the writing. I think, if you look at it, the endpaper writing does appear to be more shaky than that in the marginalia on page 138. This may well be how Dr Christopher Davis was able to determine that it was written 'some years later.' But he's the expert on these things, not I.

I'm wondering, was Dr. Davis made aware of the questions you raised before he examined the documents? And, in your opinion, is his pronouncement definitive enough to rule out the other possibilities that can alter ones handwriting? Sitting in a drafty room, anxious for a cup of tea, having too much clutter on the desk or, as Tom suggests, traveling in a carriage, could each very well alter ones handwriting. When you cite Davis as saying at one point that "they were made some years later", and then further on "could be attributed to the aging process", it makes me curious as to what is opinion would have been if it was suggested the end paper notes were written in a bouncy buggy. Years later and the aging process, while they are one possibility, is it really an opinion that excludes all others?

Thanks,

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

How about thinking for yourself Jeff?
Ofcourse Stewart is an expert on Police matters, dont be ridiculous.

Der i think, there for I am. Martins expertise is in Victorian Literature.

P

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jmenges, good to see you. It might be unfair of us to pose all these questions to Stewart, who as of yet is not an expert in handwriting and doesn't seem comfortable taking on too many of these sort of questions. To be honest, I don't have a terrible amount of faith in handwriting analysts, which is a shame, because you and Ally and others have posed some great questions which deserve answers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'This was interesting as he stated that he had no real interest in 'Jack the Ripper' but was amused by all the fuss, especially the publicity he received in 1987 when the marginalia was first published. He also said that the book was insured in the amount of £7,000...'

That sort of doesn't make sense, Stewart?
Have you ever paid £7,000 for a book that amused you for the fuss it caused?
I've got a first edition of 'The Voyage of the Beagle' in my boiler room in the garage, it's not insured, I don't find it amusing at all, but it sure caused one hell of a fuss.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,

You want me to cite a source on a question asking if its allegded a modern pencil has been used?

Im not making a statement here, a was querying. Therefore I cite myself.

Well all I can add monty is that 'A different pencil' was used. As to whether it was of the correct period...that question, to my knowledge has never been investigated. Again, red pencil, red herring.

The only thing that has been looked at is the Provinance..

This may shoke everyone (especially students of teh Maybrick Diary) but provinance is, by and large, the only factor used by historians, to authenticate.....well History.

Its all very well sitting there with hine site, but provinance is, by and large, how History is done.

Pirate

[Monty]

Norma

I wasnt referring to you. You protest too much. And APs image seems the first to be targetted by the man himself. As you say, wrong thread.

[Natalie Severn]

Der i think, there for I am. Martins expertise is in Victorian Literature.

P

Well Jeff, there you have it! If Martin"s expertise is in Victorian Literature I cant see how that entitles Paul to say Martin is better qualified than Stewart Evans to understand the character and personality of Robert Anderson who worked for the Police Force and was not any kind of Victorian "literati"----unless ofcourse by "literature" you mean making up stories---which apparently Anderson was rather good at! Like the ones he invented about Parnell for the Times newspaper in 1887?

[Natalie Severn]

Again, red pencil, red herring.

The only thing that has been looked at is the Provinance..

This may shoke everyone (especially students of teh Maybrick Diary) but provinance is, by and large, the only factor used by historians, to authenticate.....well History.

Its all very well sitting there with hine site, but provinance is, by and large, how History is done.

Pirate

No its not.
Sources have to be cross referenced nowadays.Something like this that has come from a source that may have some vested interest in it,would usually be rigorously checked and cross checked.If not anyone could arrive from anywhere and claim any document was authentic .

[Jeff Leahy]

Well Jeff, there you have it! If Martin"s expertise is in Victorian Literature I cant see how that entitles Paul to say Martin is better qualified than Stewart Evans to understand the character and personality of Robert Anderson who worked for the Police Force and was not any kind of Victorian "literati"----unless ofcourse by "literature" you mean making up stories---which apparently Anderson was rather good at! Like the ones he invented about Parnell for the Times newspaper in 1887?

I think my statement was quite clear. Martin Fido is an expert in Victorian literature...to my knowledge Stewart has never claimed to be anything other than a 'student/enthusiast/researcher' on the subject. Thats not to say his opinion is Not to be treated with respect, it clearly is.

As for your comments on Parnell, the subject, as you well know is complecated..but trying to draw parallels between Anderson's opinion on JtR and the his opinion on the Irish...is pooh pants.

Pirate/Parnell

[Jeff Leahy]

No its not.
Sources have to be cross referenced nowadays.Something like this that has come from a source that may have some vested interest in it,would usually be rigorously checked and cross checked.If not anyone could arrive from anywhere and claim any document was authentic .

As I stated: Hine site is a wonderful thing..p

[Jeff Leahy]

For those of you interested this was the question I asked to Stewart at the 2007 conference: http://vimeo.com/3477106

As I have stated before, i believe I asked a fair and honest question and received a fair and honest reply.

Jeff

[Chris]

This may shoke everyone (especially students of teh Maybrick Diary) but provinance is, by and large, the only factor used by historians, to authenticate.....well History.

Its all very well sitting there with hine site, but provinance is, by and large, how History is done.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you really should think a bit about what you're saying and try to use a bit of common sense.

Any historian worth his salt must consider the internal evidence of the text as well as its provenance. Provenance of itself is worth nothing.

If Swanson's copy of Anderson's memoirs contained an annotation in purple crayon to the effect that "MICKEY MOUSE KILLED JOHN F. KENNEDY", initialled "D.S.S.", would you really be telling us that it had to be genuine because "provenance is the only factor"?

[Nothing to see]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you really should think a bit about what you're saying and try to use a bit of common sense.

Any historian worth his salt must consider the internal evidence of the text as well as its provenance. Provenance of itself is worth nothing.

If Swanson's copy of Anderson's memoirs contained an annotation in purple crayon to the effect that "MICKEY MOUSE KILLED JOHN F. KENNEDY", initialled "D.S.S.", would you really be telling us that it had to be genuine because "provenance is the only factor"?

That would probably be worth a lot of money, don't you think?