'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Natalie Severn]

Well Pirate,
Stewart has been on this case longer than anyone else and as an ex policeman as well as an ace investigator and researcher ,I am confident that he will separate the wheat from the chaff here.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[Natalie Severn]

All I can say is thank God we have Stewart Evans. Terrific.

[Stewart P Evans]

Please Excuse

Please excuse the flaws and typos in the above, I'm tired and I'm going to give it a rest.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Speculation

Hi Stewart,
I have been reading your entries with interest. First thing in the morning and I have a fresh supply of thinks to use up. First of course, I want to start out with expressing my appreciation that you are willing to come out in an open forum, and share your ideas. Too many "experts" refuse to open themselves up to questions and debate by the plebes. So your willingness to do so, is admirable.
I wholeheartedly agree that the Swanson Marginalia should be looked into is as much as is possible and everyone settle, in their own minds at least, its authenticity or lack thereof. I do however have a question. I don't remember any speculation on the provenance in Ultimate Jack, in fact in a very brief look through I couldn't find any mention at all, and you state that you saw the original while researching for the Ultimate. I note that Keith Skinner is both co-author of Ultimate, and A-Z. Did this play a role it its omission from the Ultimate? And if yes, to what degree? With time of the essence in any investigation and with questions of the authenticity only coming about in the last year, I am wondering at the delay of some 8 years in this information coming to light to be discussed.
I also have not yet slogged through all of Ripperologist and I am sure I'll have many more questions once I have.

There is no speculation as to the provenance of the 'marginalia' in The Ultimate, and, I believe I have stated the reason for this in the past.

This has nothing to do with Keith as I am sure that he would not object to me saying anything I wished (within reason!) in a book we have worked on together. Indeed, such was the case with Letters From Hell where he was happy for me to write what I wished about McCormick's inventions, so long as it was made clear that the relevant chapters were my opinions and not necessarily his. The reason, I should think, is apparent if you consider the facts, and are the cause of some discomfort for me. The 'marginalia' was shown to me by courtesy of Jim Swanson and he was a hospitable host who entertained us at his home knowing that we were researching a new Ripper volume. When we went my main aim was to photograph all the Swanson ephemera and the notes in the book. This I did. I did, in fact mention the discrepancies at the time but received no response and I pressed it no further. I was actually very surprised by what I had seen. I wrote an essay about the visit on my computer on my return home and it is still there unpublished.

Jim was very elderly and there was no way that I was going to upset him as he had great pride in the fact that his grandfather had identified Jack the Ripper. I also did not want to put such an old gentlement to the trouble of aggressive questioning, although he did answer some questions of a mundane nature. He was also to receive a copy of the book and so the 'marginalia' was presented as it always has been, together with my photographs. The book was well advanced and there was no time for any deep delving or further research and it was obvious that if any suggestion or hint of possible fakery came up Jim would be a prime suspect as it were.

There is no hard evidence at all of fakery, but it is an obvious option as when I finally pointed out the discrepancies on these forums, without suggesting fakery, others accused me of making accusations of forgery and one even suggested I was guilty of libel and I should watch out as court action might be taken. This, of course, was not possible as I had carefully not made my knowledge public until after Jim sadly passed away. I did not think that I was accusing him of fakery but it's a grey area when such statements are made and others say that what you are stating is tantamount to an accusation of fakery.

This was all very unfortunate, but the more I had thought about it, the more I felt that the general public, especially students of the case, should be aware of the full facts. I had even worked out a scenario whereby others of Donald Swanson's next of kin may have written the endpaper notes to bolster the family claim that he had solved the Ripper case, having been told the necessary extra details, such as the name Kosminski and the identification, incarceration etc, details by their father before he died. Thus by adding the endpaper notes to the marginalia written by their father a more convincing case would be made for the story when they regaled friends or other interested parties in the tale.

That's all hypothetical and, probably, far-fetched of course. But I was struggling to reason out why the discrepancies might exist, an why there were some odd faults in the endpaper notes. I shall just finish by saying that readers will have to draw their own conclusions, I am not trying to accuse anyone and I am saying there is no hard evidence for fakery. I was, and am, merely laying the full facts before everyone - something that was not done back in 1988.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

I realise you had made the point about the suspect's name, but I think the other points I raised are also relevant, and if they had been mentioned on this thread I can't see where.
I can see that, but if someone had faked the annotations to give support to Fido's suspect I don't understand why they would include the details that do apply to Aaron Kozminski and don't apply to Cohen. Unless they were trying to provide a practical example of the Cohen/Kaminski/Kozminski/Cobleigh confusion theory, but perhaps it's not wise to speculate about that possibility.
Yes, I do agree that this may be the case, and if so it may have implications for the reliability of the information, or - looked at another way - it may help to explain some of the contradictions.
But as the possibility of fakery had been raised, I thought it was fair to mention some counter-arguments.

Sorry, not on this occasion, but previously when all this has been discussed, but, of course it bears relevance to the question of fakery rather than the points I am trying to make here, i.e. the lack of proper checking back in 1988, recording of the history of the 'marginalia', etc.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that anything was faked to support Fido's suspect. Quite the opposite in fact, had any fakery been involved it would have been far more likely to support 'Kosminski' as a suspect and the Polish Jew theory generally. But I am not trying to prove fakery, although that might be a conclusion, it would just be nice to clear up the anomalies. Believe me, had I not spotted the discrepancies of the two pencils used and the writing when I actually saw the books I would have not raised the question. As we can see, the person who did have the temerity to suggest a possible fake, was very quickly dismissed in the A-Z.

As you rightly point out, it is fair and proper to point out counter arguments, indeed I have done this myself.

[Stephen Thomas]

Pictures of the book and the 'marginalia'.

[Chris]

I have already pointed these caveats out Chris.

I realise you had made the point about the suspect's name, but I think the other points I raised are also relevant, and if they had been mentioned on this thread I can't see where.

However, Martin Fido's suspect did 'die shortly afterwards', in October 1889. And if written all those years later, 10 months could be regarded as shortly afterwards.

I can see that, but if someone had faked the annotations to give support to Fido's suspect I don't understand why they would include the details that do apply to Aaron Kozminski and don't apply to Cohen. Unless they were trying to provide a practical example of the Cohen/Kaminski/Kozminski/Cobleigh confusion theory, but perhaps it's not wise to speculate about that possibility.

Already queries I have raised have revealed the 1988 deficiencies in examining the book and the fact that the rear free endpaper notes were possibly written years after the marginalia. Surely valid and relevant points. Or do you not agree?

Yes, I do agree that this may be the case, and if so it may have implications for the reliability of the information, or - looked at another way - it may help to explain some of the contradictions.

But as the possibility of fakery had been raised, I thought it was fair to mention some counter-arguments.

[Ally]

I, like many others, had not seen the actual notes in the Anderson book until I visited Jim Swanson whilst writing the Ultimate Sourcebook. .....
I did not see the 'Swanson marginalia' 'in the flesh' until July 2000, when I visited Jim Swanson, Donald Swanson's grandson, at his home near Guildford in Surrey. I went with Keith Skinner.

I thought the reasons for questioning the 'marginalia' are rather obvious, as I have pointed out above, and these questions, as I have repeatedly stated, should have been answered back in 1987-88 when they could have been properly addressed and answered. It may be that now is too late.

Hi Stewart,

I have been reading your entries with interest. First thing in the morning and I have a fresh supply of thinks to use up. First of course, I want to start out with expressing my appreciation that you are willing to come out in an open forum, and share your ideas. Too many "experts" refuse to open themselves up to questions and debate by the plebes. So your willingness to do so, is admirable.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Swanson Marginalia should be looked into is as much as is possible and everyone settle, in their own minds at least, its authenticity or lack thereof. I do however have a question. I don't remember any speculation on the provenance in Ultimate Jack, in fact in a very brief look through I couldn't find any mention at all, and you state that you saw the original while researching for the Ultimate. I note that Keith Skinner is both co-author of Ultimate, and A-Z. Did this play a role it its omission from the Ultimate? And if yes, to what degree? With time of the essence in any investigation and with questions of the authenticity only coming about in the last year, I am wondering at the delay of some 8 years in this information coming to light to be discussed.

I also have not yet slogged through all of Ripperologist and I am sure I'll have many more questions once I have.

[Stewart P Evans]

True Meaning

I think it's fair to point out that the annotations mention not only the name Kosminski - which wasn't in the public domain until 1965 - but also the facts that he lived with his brother and was committed to Colney Hatch - which weren't in the public domain until the publication of Martin Fido's book. Perhaps these could both have been lucky guesses, but it doesn't seem likely.
On the other hand, if a hypothetical faker had had Fido's book in front of him, it is difficult to understand why he would have written that Kosminski died "shortly afterwards", or why he would have mentioned "Stepney Workhouse". I think I'm right in saying that Fido doesn't say that Aaron Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch from Mile End Old Town Workhouse, but he does say he had been treated there the previous year.

I have already pointed these caveats out Chris. However, Martin Fido's suspect did 'die shortly afterwards', in October 1889. And if written all those years later, 10 months could be regarded as shortly afterwards. But I am not trying to prove fakery, the intent is to establish the truth and the proper status of the 'Swanson marginalia'. The result of which, actually, does not worry me either way. I should happily agree to its total authenticity if that was established and it was not I who first raised doubts about it. Already queries I have raised have revealed the 1988 deficiencies in examining the book and the fact that the rear free endpaper notes were possibly written years after the marginalia. Surely valid and relevant points. Or do you not agree?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Much as admire the work of Martin and Paul, when it comes to Anderson I side with Winston Churchill.

After reading the Blackwood articles when Home Secretary he said in the House of Commons—

"I have looked through these articles and they seem to me to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness. They are written, if I may say so, in the style of 'How Bill Adams Won the Battle of Waterloo'. The writer has been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed."

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Paul also notes that a 1987 hoaxer "is likely to have written 'Aaron Kosminski' or maybe Fido's preferred candidate for Anderson's suspect, David Cohen." Here he is getting to the nitty-gritty, as he is zeroing in on the period between which Fido's book appeared (naming Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen) and the publication of the 'marginalia' in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks later, and after Jim Swanson read Fido's book. This is why information on the earlier attempt to publish with the News of the World is so important. When exactly was this and what were the exact circumstances. That should have been established back in 1988. Apparently it wasn't.

I haven't read Paul Begg's article, as I don't subscribe to Ripperologist.

I think it's fair to point out that the annotations mention not only the name Kosminski - which wasn't in the public domain until 1965 - but also the facts that he lived with his brother and was committed to Colney Hatch - which weren't in the public domain until the publication of Martin Fido's book. Perhaps these could both have been lucky guesses, but it doesn't seem likely.

On the other hand, if a hypothetical faker had had Fido's book in front of him, it is difficult to understand why he would have written that Kosminski died "shortly afterwards", or why he would have mentioned "Stepney Workhouse". I think I'm right in saying that Fido doesn't say that Aaron Kozminski was admitted to Colney Hatch from Mile End Old Town Workhouse, but he does say he had been treated there the previous year.

[Stewart P Evans]

Henry Smith

Paul's article is very long and involved and I am trying not to get into an overkill situation in responding to it. However, in order to demonstrate how misleading both he and Martin can be, it I am going to use the following example.

On page 19 of the article the following appears - "Another critic was Major Smith, but as Martin Fido observed, 'It goes without saying that Smith the worldling and Anderson the millenarianist were utterly antipathetical personalities. Neither can be imagined having any comfortable dealings with the other, or willingly exchanging confidences.' This observation seems well made, since the attack on Anderson by Smith hardly reads like the two men were friends or even friendly former colleagues."

Now given the influence of both these authors and given the high-brow dissections they make of the evidence, any reader of this article might accept this as a fact and draw their judgement on both men from this paragraph.

The caveat that the Smith 'attack on Anderson' did not occur until 1910, when both men published their memoirs, is not pointed out to the reader and Paul suggests that it 'hardly reads like the the two men were friends or even friendly former colleagues.' These conclusions, therefore, are based on minimal information and knowledge.

Despite being in different police forces, Smith the City and Anderson the Met, the two men were, during their service, in touch with each other. In my possession (in my huge Anderson collection) I have a letter written by Smith to Anderson on July 16, 1901. Addressed to 'My dear Anderson' it begins 'I have wished much to see you lately and have your advice...' and it ends 'With kind regards, Yours ever most truly Henry Smith'. This hardly sounds like the relationship described in Paul Begg's article.

[Stewart P Evans]

Quotes

Paul is fond of slipping in the odd quote here and there to support his contentions or to bring his reader into line. To this end, at the bottom of page 13, he slips in a quote by G. R. Elton as regards the interpretation of the historical word. Now I am not an academic, in fact I have been accused on these boards of being unscholarly, so I had better be careful about what I say and try not to rise above my own plebian level.

Having tossed in his quote Paul rationalises with his readers and says that 'with this advice in mind' the 'use of different pencils' and 'an almost imperceptible difference in handwriting' is not sufficient reason to 'disallow the marginalia into the historical record.' Has anyone suggested that we do? Surely all I have suggested is that we try to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies and resolve certain obvious problems. Paul would rather have it that the 'marginalia' is fully accepted, without question, and that, as we have seen, has resulted in donkey's years of inconclusive debate about 'The Seaside Home' and its true meaning. And a final answer would seem to be an impossible goal.

I also don't think that anyone has 'set aside a potentially valuable document and lose what it may be able to tell us.' In fact, I don't think anyone has, or ever will for that matter. But the all important word is 'potentially' and will we ever know if it is or not? I am advocating that the the shortcomings and apparent anomalies of the Swanson annotations should be taken into account and should be there as a caveat to he who may otherwise accept them as the handed down gospel. For goodness sake, the problems are there and should not be ignored just because they militate against a favourite source for bolstering a personal theory.

Paul goes on to his primary concern stating 'what we are primarily concerned with in this essay...' (surely that should read 'what I am...'?) and that is what the 'marginalia' might tell us about Swanson and his part as regards the [alleged] identification. We then move into Paul's favourite area - the rhetorical question. He follows with what the reader will find to be interesting information on Swanson's 'cache' and other notes. Much is familiar ground after that, going over Swanson's position and the alleged identification - I use the word 'alleged' advisedly as there has never been any contemporary or independent evidence to prove that there was one. That is why, according to these authors, Anderson can't have lied.

I have always thought, assuming that the endpaper notes are totally beyond question (as I used to), that the words "where he had been sent by us" appear to indicate that Swanson was not present, otherwise surely he would have said "where he had been taken by us"? Plenty of rhetorical questions follow in Paul's piece and it would be tedious to address them all. Be that as it may, if the involved, and presumably official, identification described by Paul ever took place it is truly amazing that -

1. Not one official hint of it has survived.
2. Not one other contemporary police officer, prisoner escort, asylum or Home official, apparently, has ever breathed a single word about it.
3. That such an irregular and odd procedure could take place with official sanction, yet no official mention (and there was no apparent reason for secrecy).

Anyway, there is the usual surfeit of 'possiblies', 'could haves', 'ifs' and 'mights' to season the rhetorical brew. Paul has said most, if not all, of it before in his many musings on this subject which appears to be very dear to him. However, this is not a debate about what might have happened, it's a debate about the 'marginalia' and when it should be accepted without question. Paul really must spend hours on end thinking about all this.

Naturally Paul attacks the impudent suggestion that the sainted Anderson could possibly suffer from 'geriatric wishful thinking or that he could have confused another identification' as those naughty old boys Evans and Rumbelow seem to suggest. (Surely it must be an option?) Here, he points out, 'much depends' on Swanson 'also geriatrically wishfully thinking' (have I got that right? Yes, that's what he wrote) or 'sharing Anderson's geriatric wishful thoughts, or that he was equally confused about who was identified'. Hang on a minute, I need to recover from that lot.

[5 minutes later] Ah that's better, I'm back now. He quotes the Jewish Chronicle articles on Anderson, funny how these were discovered by a non-Anderson oriented researcher (the ever reliable Nick Connell) and not one of the Andersonites. Then follows the usual reinstatement of Anderson as a pillar of righteousness (with some admitted human foibles) who could not possibly lie in this context - according to Martin Fido. In fact 'Martin Fido is the only person who has assessed Anderson' and you had better take notice of him as he is 'a professional academic and specialist in the Victorian period who is blessed with an interest in and understanding of the eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society.'

How can anyone argue with such a Titan? A mere unscholarly pleb such as I would venture there at my peril. Martin concluded that "Since neither Anderson nor Macnaghten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority." I know that you have all read this before, but it's in Paul's article (and the A-Z, and Paul's books and...) and so I'll trot it out again. "...one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian; he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster...and [Anderson] would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation." Really?, that's OK then, we can believe all he writes without reservation. I reckon that it would be 'rather lame' to reject this conclusion.

There's a lot more about how Anderson couldn't have - wouldn't have - lied but really too much to address here. More Later.

[Stewart P Evans]

To Return

To return to Paul's article, the next section seeks to redress the balance, to minimise the objections raised and to attempt to return the 'marginalia' to its former unchallenged status. First he simplifies the caveats raised and emphasises the statement that 'the writer was most likely to be Swanson'. But 'most likely' is a long way from the A-Z's unequivocal claim that 'the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's...' It is a damage limitation exercise.

He then reduces the idea that the handwriting was not Swanson's to a 'remote possibility' and is 'a consideration of little more than academic interest.' Really? We shall see. But it is, at least, a step removed from his previous claim that the fact that the writing was Swanson's was confirmed and beyond question. Paul is very clever with words and it is necessary to examine them closely and to seek meaning and motive for what he says. His is also adept at swinging the gist of the matter off course and to embarking on side issues. We really must be exact and to the point. We must also avoid smokescreens and tangential discussion that might be irrelevant.

He says that the 'marginalia' identifies 'Kosminski' as Anderson's suspect, and that this name was unknown until the discovery of Macnaghten's material. The first point is that it is the endpaper notes that identify the name 'Kosminski', and not the 'marginalia.' I am aware that 'marginalia' has been used as a blanket term to describe all the annotations, but I do feel that the distinction should be made.

While it is true that the name was not known until Macnaghten's material emerged, the Polish Jew suspect, complete with Macnaghten's description of him, had been around since 1898. I had always associated this Polish Jew suspect as one and the same as Anderson's Polish Jew; I had been in possession of the two sources since the late 1960s. This seemed obvious to me and if you had these two sources, i.e. Griffiths's 1898 book and Anderson's 1910 summary they stood side by side as being one and the same. Of course I never published this and the credit for the first publication of this idea must be accorded to Martin Fido.

Paul goes on to state that "if the marginalia is not authentic in whole or part then it's unlikely to have been created prior to the first public appearance of the name 'Kosminski' in print" which was in Cullen's 1965 book. This a step forward as there was a time when Paul would not have even considered the possibility of the 'whole or part' of the 'marginalia' not being genuine. I wouldn't argue with that. He then goes on to suggest that anyone trying to identify Anderson's suspect 'would probably' 'have turned to Rumbelow' as the most readily available source. Be that as it may, I'm afraid that I turned to Griffiths and Anderson many years before that to identify the Polish Jew, albeit sans the name.

Paul also notes that a 1987 hoaxer "is likely to have written 'Aaron Kosminski' or maybe Fido's preferred candidate for Anderson's suspect, David Cohen." Here he is getting to the nitty-gritty, as he is zeroing in on the period between which Fido's book appeared (naming Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen) and the publication of the 'marginalia' in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks later, and after Jim Swanson read Fido's book. This is why information on the earlier attempt to publish with the News of the World is so important. When exactly was this and what were the exact circumstances. That should have been established back in 1988. Apparently it wasn't.

But I cannot agree that such a person would have readily resorted to Martin Fido's Aaron Kosminski and David Cohen. First, as Paul points out, the single name 'Kosminski' had been around since 1965 in Macnaghten's report and, with all due respect, there is no evidence that David Cohen was even a police suspect. Cohen is Fido's theory and his alone.

I must make it clear here that I am not making accusations of fakery, I am attempting to establish the facts. I should be only too pleased if the questions surrounding the 'marginalia' could be resolved and that we could happily accept all that it says without question. But, it should be noted, all the inconsistencies, bad grammar and sensational revelation about 'The Seaside Home' are carried on the rear free endpaper of the book and not in the marginalia.