'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Jeff Leahy]

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’s fair enough Chris. What I was getting at, was chemical and scientific analysis of paper and ink is a relatively modern phenomena. And the way that the Marginalia was authenticated at the time was fairly common practice/procedure.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Authenticated

That’s fair enough Chris. What I was getting at, was chemical and scientific analysis of paper and ink is a relatively modern phenomena. And the way that the Marginalia was authenticated at the time was fairly common practice/procedure.
Pirate

I was a serving police officer in 1988, and had been for 19 years at that time. I can assure you that 'the way that the Marginalia was authenticated at the time was fairly common practice/procedure' was not the case at all.

I was involved in several cases that included letter or document authentication and you would not believe the laboratory forms (quadruplicated) and continuity procedures involved. Wherever are you getting the nonsense that you spout from? If you are unable to make sensible points perhaps you would refrain from making comments such as this before seeking proper and informed, advice.

I have to confess that I was rather surprised that 'the Home Office document examiner' would involve himself in the casual perusal of some photocopies. But, there, I don't suppose that he thought much about it as he wasn't producing an official analysis, with the attendant report, and didn't think for a minute that it had any real import or that it would be publicised and discussed.

[Jeff Leahy]

I was involved in several cases that included letter or document authentication and you would not believe the laboratory forms (quadruplicated) and continuity procedures involved. Wherever are you getting the nonsense that you spout from? If you are unable to make sensible points perhaps you would refrain from making comments such as this before seeking proper and informed, advice.

Are you referring to the identifying of historical documents here? or documents tested as part of a criminal investigation which would be required to stand up in court?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Forensic

Are you referring to the identifying of historical documents here? or documents tested as part of a criminal investigation which would be required to stand up in court?
Pirate

Now where have I heard those words before? I wonder?

This statement is fatuous and irrelevant. For we are talking about a claim that the Home Office document examiner, a forensic functionary, has confirmed that a particular document, an annotated book, contains separate sets of handwriting all of which are in the hand of Donald Swanson. It has nothing to to with the interpretation of history - but has everything to do with document authentication.

This episode was so farcical that in the first place Paul Begg sent a photocopy sample of 'Swanson's handwriting' from the official files, which was not Swanson's at all, as the report had apparently been written by an amanuensis. The good doctor declared that the writing in the book was not Swanson's which must have resulted in some consternation until Mr Begg realised his mistake.

The authentication was nothing more than a virtually worthless exercise, as we have seen by what an expert who has seen the actual book (Dr Davis) has said. Again, please get your (dual?) act together before troubling me with your nonsense.

[sushka]

Stewart,
I hope you will continue to engage with the forums, and not get dissuaded by the interactive styles of a small number of posters. The depth and breadth of your knowledge, experience and insight is valued by most of us!
Cheers
Sushka

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Stewart,
I hope you will continue to engage with the forums, and not get dissuaded by the interactive styles of a small number of posters. The depth and breadth of your knowledge, experience and insight is valued by most of us!
Cheers
Sushka

Thank you very much Sushka. However, I have to avoid getting upset and some people seem to be intent on doing that to me. I don't want to say, or scan and post, anything that I might regret.

[sushka]

No problems. I guess you won't want to say too much about whether you are working on a new book?

S

[Nothing to see]

Stewart, I read your books and watch the DVD's you're involved in. I think your knowledge is phenomenal. I figure you and I are about the same age.

The explosion in knowledge between now and '88 is incredible. You and I know that up until Knight, in '77, there was hardly anything. Then it started to pick up, very slowly, then from the centenary this almighty boom about Jack.

The diary, well, that's another topic.

You know what you're talking about. I'm not not sure about Swanson but that's JMO.

Cheers.

[Jeff Leahy]

Now where have I heard those words before? I wonder?

This statement is fatuous and irrelevant. For we are talking about a claim that the Home Office document examiner, a forensic functionary, has confirmed that a particular document, an annotated book, contains separate sets of handwriting all of which are in the hand of Donald Swanson. It has nothing to to with the interpretation of history - but has everything to do with document authentication.

This episode was so farcical that in the first place Paul Begg sent a photocopy sample of 'Swanson's handwriting' from the official files, which was not Swanson's at all, as the report had apparently been written by an amanuensis. The good doctor declared that the writing in the book was not Swanson's which must have resulted in some consternation until Mr Begg realised his mistake.

The authentication was nothing more than a virtually worthless exercise, as we have seen by what an expert who has seen the actual book (Dr Davis) has said. Again, please get your (dual?) act together before troubling me with your nonsense.

Yes, I know the story well; that the first time a wrong sample of Swanson’s handwriting was sent. However it was spotted immediately by the examiner, which would seem to vindicate that he new what he was doing. The correct sample was sent and it was verified as Swanson’s handwriting.

Dr Davies doesn’t seem to have contradicted this original finding. He has simply given more information. In all probability both pieces of writing were written by Swanson.

All of which, appears to me, to vindicate the original assessment made by Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

To my knowledge no one has come up with a credible story, how, when or why the marginalia may have been forged.

As for some imagined dual, I’m afraid I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. I’m simply pointing out that in all probability the Marginalia is genuine and no credible argument has ever been made to the contrary.

All the best

Pirate

[ChrisGeorge]

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

Or wrote it several hours later with the pencil he found to hand, having by then broken open (AP will like this part) his favorite cask of brandy or his best cognac.

Chris

[Jeff Leahy]

Or wrote it several hours later with the pencil he found to hand, having by then broken open (AP will like this part) his favorite cask of brandy or his best cognac.

Chris

It would certainly make him more fourth coming with information

I think AP is AP Wolf, wild guess.

[Nothing to see]

Sorry. Who is AP?

[ChrisGeorge]

Sorry. Who is AP?

AP Wolf, author of Jack The Myth.

Chris

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

Yes, I know the story well; that the first time a wrong sample of Swanson’s handwriting was sent. However it was spotted immediately by the examiner, which would seem to vindicate that he new what he was doing. The correct sample was sent and it was verified as Swanson’s handwriting.
Dr Davies doesn’t seem to have contradicted this original finding. He has simply given more information. In all probability both pieces of writing were written by Swanson.
All of which, appears to me, to vindicate the original assessment made by Paul Begg and Martin Fido.
To my knowledge no one has come up with a credible story, how, when or why the marginalia may have been forged.
As for some imagined dual, I’m afraid I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. I’m simply pointing out that in all probability the Marginalia is genuine and no credible argument has ever been made to the contrary.
All the best
Pirate

No, the writing could not have been 'verified as Swanson's handwriting'. What he could do, though, is say that in his opinion the writing was in the same hand. Handwriting experts give expert opinion.

What Dr Davis has stated is totally different to what the early expert said. For in the early examination (of photocopies) it appears that the writing was declared to be unquestionably Swanson's, whereas Dr Davis's statements are less certain, contain caveats and also identify crucial differences between the two sets of handwriting in the book. None of this, apparently, emerged in the early examination. Hence the A-Z was able to pronounce on the undoubted, unqualified, acceptance of the 'marginalia', which suited its authors very well.

Now, I again repeat, I am not alleging fakery here, indeed I am quite happy for everyone to read all that is available on this and to draw their own conclusions. But I do not agree with the blind, unqualified, acceptance advocated in the A-Z. Especially as now, as we have seen, all is not quite as straightforward as it first appeared.

There is absolutely no way that 'the original assessment made by Paul Begg and Martin Fido' has been vindicated. If it had there would be no debate here and all would be cosy in the garden, as it was prior to a proper examination of these notes being made. Get it into your head - this isn't about forgery, it's about proper and objective examination and assessment. Just because certain people get very upset about any queries being raised on the 'sacrosanct marginalia' doesn't mean that we shouldn't all be free to discuss it as we wish. Although I do hope that such discussion remains sensible and relevant.

[Chris]

What Dr Davis has stated is totally different to what the early expert said. For in the early examination (of photocopies) it appears that the writing was declared to be unquestionably Swanson's, whereas Dr Davis's statements are less certain, contain caveats and also identify crucial differences between the two sets of handwriting in the book. None of this, apparently, emerged in the early examination.

As a matter of interest, is it known whether the original document examiner saw copies of both sets of annotations, or only a copy of the ones on the endpaper? If the latter, it would obviously explain why he didn't comment on the differences between the annotations on the two pages (if he didn't). Quite possibly that information has already been posted and I've missed it.