'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Stephen Thomas]

Here's two examples of handwriting

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?

Hi Simon

Yes, the last 3 pages of the report seem to be written by another person. Could it be that the whole thing was dictated using 2 secretaries?

[Chris]

Clearly Dr Davies believes the whole paragraph was written by the same person.

Actually, there's nothing in the press release that says anything about that either way.

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

Who are the 'debunkers' you claim are 'throwing mud'? This is not a rhetorical question. It's one you should answer in the name of scholarship.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Another interesting point that can be gained from Dr Davies report is that the end annotation was clearly written in the same hand and by the same person.

The usual claim made by debunkers of the marginalia is that only the last line

Kosminski was the suspect- DSS

Is a forgery? Clearly Dr Davies believes the whole paragraph was written by the same person. I wonder how good a forger someone would have to be to fool an expert on a whole paragraph?

Of course the debunkers hope if enough mud is thrown some of it will stick.

The fact seems to remain however that whoever wrote ‘Kosminski’ also wrote the rest of the paragraph.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

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

Here's two examples of handwriting—





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

[jmenges]

Thanks, Chris.

In any event, it would be nice to find out what Christopher Davis knew about the questions raised, when he knew it, and whether that had some influence on his purpose and then the wording of his comments.

But it looks to me as though he's certain enough, to a high degree of probability, that both sets, the marginalia and endpaper, were written by Swanson.

In my opinion.

JM

[Chris]

Are we sure he was comparing the two writings in the book with each other? Or the total writing in the book versus writing in a memoranda?

The "second set of notes" being the whole of the Marginalia, which would have been written years after the memoranda he used to compare.

I agree it could have been more clearly written, but as I read it he compared a sample of Swanson's writing in a "ledger" with the two sets of annotations in the book.

I think the "second set of notes" has to refer to the second set of annotations - those on the endpaper. If it referred to the whole of the annotations in the book, that would make nonsense of the sentence:
"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."

[jmenges]

When one reads the article cited in the Rip, it says:

http://forensicsfaq.com/what-can-forensic-linguistics-tell-us-about-jack-the-ripper.html

The book was loaned to the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum in London in July 2006.

Dr Davies, who is based at the Forensic Science Service’s Lambeth Laboratory, was then asked for his expert opinion as to whether the writing actually did belong to Chief Inspector Swanson.

This was determined by comparing it to that in a memoranda he was known to have written.

Linguistic Comparison

Dr Davies compared the two samples of writing for their general style, the size, spacing, fluency and proportions and found there was a high probability that they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson.

The report containing his findings will now be kept along with the annotated book at the Crime Museum.

Dr Davies hopes that his findings will give those interested in the Ripper mystery something new to debate upon -

“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.”

Are we sure he was comparing the two writings in the book with each other? Or the total writing in the book versus writing in a memoranda?

The "second set of notes" being the whole of the Marginalia, which would have been written years after the memoranda he used to compare.

Confusing, to me at least.

JM

[ChrisGeorge]

Why is it that this thread reminds me of politics...?

The best,
Fisherman

Maybe because everyone has a knife and a fork and a menu?

Chris

[Fisherman]

Why is it that this thread reminds me of politics...?

The best,
Fisherman

[ChrisGeorge]

Just to add to that Chris, why would a forger use a different colour pencil when a straight forward pencil would be the easiest thing in the world to copy. It doesn't make sense.

Pirate

And talking of colored pencil, another famous example in the case: The Dear Boss letter writer of 25 September 1888 used both a pen and then a pencil to write the postscript. And no one has questioned that.

Chris

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi all

I think the bottom line here is that I don't see any reason for a hoax or forgery. Sure there may be oddities and questions about why Swanson would have made two notes in his boss's memoirs at different times (if they were made at different times) but where is the bundle of money to be made by someone other than Swanson if they did contrive the second note? It's surely only of academic interest whether or not Kosminski was the suspect being discussed by Anderson. Nobody's reputation was going to rise or fall on the revelation, despite the emotions the debate appears to engender in this little rarified corner of Ripperology. *cough*

All the best

Chris

Just to add to that Chris, why would a forger use a different colour pencil when a straight forward pencil would be the easiest thing in the world to copy. It doesn't make sense.

Pirate

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

I think the bottom line here is that I don't see any reason for a hoax or forgery. Sure there may be oddities and questions about why Swanson would have made two notes in his boss's memoirs at different times (if they were made at different times) but where is the bundle of money to be made by someone other than Swanson if they did contrive the second note? It's surely only of academic interest whether or not Kosminski was the suspect being discussed by Anderson. Nobody's reputation was going to rise or fall on the revelation, despite the emotions the debate appears to engender in this little rarified corner of Ripperology. *cough*

All the best

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Relax, AP, I don't think you're a hack. But you are known to associate with them and behave even worse. Now, like the mengemeister said, let's try to stay on topic.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'This episode rather reminds me of the 17th Sept letter debacle where an obvious and blatant hoax was bandied about by a handful of hacks as 'genuine' and Stewart was raked over the coals for pointing out the contrary. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't world.'

Now that statement, Tom, is going to bite your arse very soon now.