'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Chris

Is it not reasonable to assume that as Dr Davies was asked to authenticate the document that he would have stated if there were any noticeable differences between any particular parts of the paragraph?

Actually it would be most interesting to know what his brief was, given his strange end comment. However if he had of noticed a discrepancy he would have commented, the fact that he didn’t suggests that nothing caught his eye. One doesn't report on something that is not.

“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.”

Pirate

PS I think I would have named names if I’d had any interest in doing so Tom, I’ll leave name-calling and Morse roll to you , as you are clearly the Tom Tom.

[Admin]

Return to topic and take the rest to Pub Talk.

[Monty]

Oh the irony boys.

[Chris]

Jeff

Have you seen the report?

If not, what is the basis for your assertions about what Davies did and didn't comment on?

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris there is no reference to any part of the end paragraph being any different to any other part of the paragraph..

I am therefore drawing a conclusion that none was made.

Are you suggesting that Dr Davies did highlight a difference between

Kosminski was the suspert-DSS and the rest of the end annotation?

If so, I don't ever recall seeing it or it coming up or being discussed in any conversation before.

Pirate

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi All,

What I know about graphology would fit on a nano-particle.

Here's two examples of handwriting—

[ATTACH]4783[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]4784[/ATTACH]

Both are from Sir Charles Warren's 6th November 1888 report on the erasure of the GSG.

Do the apparent dissimilarities in style mean the report is a hoax/fake?

Regards,

Simon

Hold hard there, matey. The examples of documents you show were written while Sir Charles Warren was in office as head of the Met. Of course a lot of documents while an official is serving are written in the hand of a secretary or clerk and just signed by the office holder. Goes without saying. It's a world of difference going from that situation to the one that pertains to Swanson's marginalia and endnote, when it is just him, in retirement, making notes just for himself.

Chris

[Chris]

Chris there is no reference to any part of the end paragraph being any different to any other part of the paragraph..

Please will you answer my question? Have you seen the report or not?

[Ally]

Hi Stewart,

You have the option of ignoring annoyances and continuing with those of us who are actually attempting to discuss this. Like oh, me. You can answer my question instead, which I asked before but have never gotten an answer to, and I figured you'd know the answer. I think JMenges has one also.

Here's mine:

My question is this: how much marginalia did the book contain? Was it limited to the pages we know about that led to the kosminski identification? Or was it littered with marginalia throughout the book? And if so, was there any other instance where the second pencil was used? Or was the only time the second pencil was used was in the tacked on identification of kosminski?

[Jeff Leahy]

Kosminski was the suspect.

Ah Good Morning Casebook

Always best to wake fresh and enthusiastic. To business.

Re: your question Chris about Dr Davies Report: I must admit that I haven’t seen the whole original report in full. But then as that report has never actually been released for public inspection my guess is that neither you nor Stewart have seen that report either.

However that said my understanding is that the following statement quotes Dr Davies in full. However if anyone is in doubt they can always double check with Paul Begg’s current Ripprologist article:

“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.”

Again I must stress the importance of two particular phrases:

Stating that the marginalia “probably was Swanson’s hand writing” and “It was most likely to be Swanson”.

Now I don’t and have never claimed to be an expert. I see myself as a journalist asking questions of the experts, and I have done so at length over the last eight or nine years. In particular asking questions about the marginalia and Specifically about Old Jim Swanson as Stewart likes to phrase it.

My conclusion from those questions is that there is little reason to suppose that the Marginalia is forged or Fake. That’s not being close minded or supporting any bodies particular theory without questioning, its just a personal point of view having given considerable time and thought and question to the subject.

Indeed I’ve asked questions of Both Stewart and Paul at length on the subject and read about their meetings with Jim Swanson. I’ve asked the same questions that Ally is currently asking.

My understanding is that there are indeed other examples of Swanson Marginalia (although I don’t remember about the coloured pencil)

And clearly Dr Davies report only mentions slight differences in the end annotation. So we know that Swanson did write marginalia.

Having questioned both Paul and Stewart I have no reason to suspect Jim Swanson of forgery. The motive was clearly not money..though Stewart does hint of a ‘motive’ (As he is inclined to hint but then retract himself) that being; that he wanted his grandfather to know the identity of JtR.

Thus I’ve given thought to the possibility that Jim added the end name “Kosminski was the suspect-DSS”

However there is no evidence for this: Dr Davies report suggests that the end colour pencil was written in one go. It would have been very easy to spot different pencils with that specific colour. He didn’t spot a difference or it would have been mentioned.

Thus, if we suspect Jim Swanson we must presume he is a master forger who created the whole end annotation. And there is nothing in either Stewart’s account of his meeting or Paul’s account of his meeting that leads me to believe that that is the case.

There is clearly a small time frame in which the name ‘Kosminski’ is in the public domain and a forger could have referenced it.

As I have stated before I have never heard a credible argument How, when or why the Marginalia may have been forged…

So I am not blind, I am not unable to reach my own conclusions. I have simply looked at the evidence spoken at length to experts and reached a sound and reasonable conclusion that “Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia” which is my opinion.

And it’s not a bizarre conclusion, given that almost everyone else here, including Chris and Stewart think Swanson ‘Probably’ wrote the marginalia.

I have no objection to anyone discussing or reaching there own conclusions. Indeed I ask that they do so.

However I did object to Stewart’s factious statements that implied that I didn’t know what I was talking about. As I said I don’t claim to be an expert but I have discussed this subject with experts and at length…and any suggestion that I am not interested in the FACTS of the case, are clearly ridiculous and laced with personal agenda..

As for the rest of the gaggle that hide behind Stewarts skirts on casebook, its strangle how they all seem to have their own Mad-cap agenda’s to push on other threads and seem to have the same enthusiasm and vested interest in dismissing ‘Andersons Polish Jew Theory’ To the point that one feels that they are willing to defy reason in order to prove the Marginalia Fake.

Well wake up call. “in all probability the Marginalia is Genuine’ which means that Swanson appears to be confirming Andersons claims and Swanson clearly puts a name to Andersons Suspect, KOSMINSKI.

So while Stewart is probably correct in his beliefs that the case can never be solved. What may be ‘one day’ reached is a conclusion to a ‘probable’ suspect.

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

Ah Good Morning Casebook

Always best to wake fresh and enthusiastic. To business.

Re: your question Chris about Dr Davies Report: I must admit that I haven’t seen the whole original report in full. But then as that report has never actually been released for public inspection my guess is that neither you nor Stewart have seen that report either.

However that said my understanding is that the following statement quotes Dr Davies in full. However if anyone is in doubt they can always double check with Paul Begg’s current Ripprologist article:

“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.”

Again I must stress the importance of two particular phrases:

Stating that the marginalia “probably was Swanson’s hand writing” and “It was most likely to be Swanson”.

Now I don’t and have never claimed to be an expert. I see myself as a journalist asking questions of the experts, and I have done so at length over the last eight or nine years. In particular asking questions about the marginalia and Specifically about Old Jim Swanson as Stewart likes to phrase it.

My conclusion from those questions is that there is little reason to suppose that the Marginalia is forged or Fake. That’s not being close minded or supporting any bodies particular theory without questioning, its just a personal point of view having given considerable time and thought and question to the subject.

Indeed I’ve asked questions of Both Stewart and Paul at length on the subject and read about their meetings with Jim Swanson. I’ve asked the same questions that Ally is currently asking.

My understanding is that there are indeed other examples of Swanson Marginalia (although I don’t remember about the coloured pencil)

And clearly Dr Davies report only mentions slight differences in the end annotation. So we know that Swanson did write marginalia.

Having questioned both Paul and Stewart I have no reason to suspect Jim Swanson of forgery. The motive was clearly not money..though Stewart does hint of a ‘motive’ (As he is inclined to hint but then retract himself) that being; that he wanted his grandfather to know the identity of JtR.

Thus I’ve given thought to the possibility that Jim added the end name “Kosminski was the suspect-DSS”

However there is no evidence for this: Dr Davies report suggests that the end colour pencil was written in one go. It would have been very easy to spot different pencils with that specific colour. He didn’t spot a difference or it would have been mentioned.

Thus, if we suspect Jim Swanson we must presume he is a master forger who created the whole end annotation. And there is nothing in either Stewart’s account of his meeting or Paul’s account of his meeting that leads me to believe that that is the case.

There is clearly a small time frame in which the name ‘Kosminski’ is in the public domain and a forger could have referenced it.

As I have stated before I have never heard a credible argument How, when or why the Marginalia may have been forged…

So I am not blind, I am not unable to reach my own conclusions. I have simply looked at the evidence spoken at length to experts and reached a sound and reasonable conclusion that “Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia” which is my opinion.

And it’s not a bizarre conclusion, given that almost everyone else here, including Chris and Stewart think Swanson ‘Probably’ wrote the marginalia.

I have no objection to anyone discussing or reaching there own conclusions. Indeed I ask that they do so.

However I did object to Stewart’s factious statements that implied that I didn’t know what I was talking about. As I said I don’t claim to be an expert but I have discussed this subject with experts and at length…and any suggestion that I am not interested in the FACTS of the case, are clearly ridiculous and laced with personal agenda..

As for the rest of the gaggle that hide behind Stewarts skirts on casebook, its strangle how they all seem to have their own Mad-cap agenda’s to push on other threads and seem to have the same enthusiasm and vested interest in dismissing ‘Andersons Polish Jew Theory’ To the point that one feels that they are willing to defy reason in order to prove the Marginalia Fake.

Well wake up call. “in all probability the Marginalia is Genuine’ which means that Swanson appears to be confirming Andersons claims and Swanson clearly puts a name to Andersons Suspect, KOSMINSKI.So while Stewart is probably correct in his beliefs that the case can never be solved. What may be ‘one day’ reached is a conclusion to a ‘probable’ suspect.

Pirate

PJ, Kosminski was the suspect dragged off to the seaside policeman's home that no-one seems to be able to find. Was it Fido who posited Kosminski as Jack? I'll have to go and find his book. Yes, I have quite a collection.

However, I don't believe the marginalia are a fake, written by grandchildren, or anything else besides produced by Swanson. That's JMO. I'm not an expert.
I think Stewart makes many good points.

This thread seems to have degenerated to kindergarden crap.

We're all adults. Get a grip. Deal and move on.

[Jeff Leahy]

PJ, Kosminski was the suspect dragged off to the seaside policeman's home that no-one seems to be able to find. Was it Fido who posited Kosminski as Jack? I'll have to go and find his book. Yes, I have quite a collection.
.

Hi Nothing to See

No, Martin Fido reached his own conclusion about David Cohen, However at the end of his research he came across the name Aaron Kosminski.

There are of course a number of poblems with Aaron Kosminski being JtR.

I just don't believe that the Marginlia being fake is one of them.

Pirate

PS I also think Stewart makes many good points. I have his books and believe it or not I am a fan. I simply don't see why i shouldn't be aloud to ask questions without receiving personal abuse.

[Chris]

Jeff

Thank you.

You haven't read the report. So obviously you are not in a position to know what Davies did or did not comment on in the report.

The five sentences you quote are simply some comments supplied by Davies for a Forensic Science Service press release. They are not even part of the report. Of course they don't "[quote] Dr Davies in full".

[Nothing to see]

Hi Nothing to See

No, Martin Fido reached his own conclusion about David Cohen, However at the end of his research he came across the name Aaron Kosminski.

There are of course a number of poblems with Aaron Kosminski being JtR.

I just don't believe that the Marginlia being fake is one of them.

Pirate

PS I also think Stewart makes many good points. I have his books and believe it or not I am a fan. I simply don't see why i shouldn't be aloud to ask questions without receiving personal abuse.

I just posted a reply and it went pftt. I'll be back.

[Nothing to see]

PJ. You don't need me to tell you this. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's.
I'm really interested to read everyone's thoughts. Because we don't agree it's not the end of the world.

We're all adults. Let's act that way.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Chris;72952]Jeff

Thank you.

You haven't read the report. So obviously you are not in a position to know what Davies did or did not comment on in the report.

The five sentences you quote are simply some comments supplied by Davies for a Forensic Science Service press release. They are not even part of the report. Of course they don't "

Dr Davies in full".

Yes you are correct on that. What I was clearly referencing was Dr Davies Statement on the internet not the full report which neither you or I could actually have seen, because its not pulished in full..

However unless you are suggesting that that report might carry some heavily laden ‘Bomb shell’ which is extremely unlikely (though as you correctly point out ‘Probability’ doesn’t necessarily rule it out as impossible) but unless you can give me ‘good odds’ in common speek….then I am concluding from what is currently known….

That what Dr Davis ‘appears’ to be saying, is that the whole of the endpaper notes were written later and with different pencil than the marginalia notes.

Now unless you believe that that report contains a hidden bombshell, which as I said I believe extremely unlikely..then its safe to assume that the end annotation was written by one person.

Of course there are outside possibilities to this. Perhaps Swanson dictated it? Which is why its initialled. DSS? However we know that there are other examples of Swanson Marginalia being initialled (Ref: Beggs recent article).

Again if you want to make the case for possible forgery you have to take into account that the information to do so wasn’t available until the 1960’s and that the book didn’t pass to Jim Swanson until the death of Swansons Daughter in the 1980’s.

There’s no real reason to suppose that Jim Swanson would have faked the notes: he could have done, but ‘could have’ is not good enough reason for such a serious accusation, especially when Dr Davies twice stated that marginalia throughout was probably written by Donald Sutherland Swanson.

Yours Pirate

PS sorry about the your quote somethoing appears to have gone pear shaped I cant fix..P