There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

I have nothing to add, other than to point out to you Americans that this location was far from 'remote'.

Having lived virtually next door in the address some years ago, I can say that it was within walking distance from Brighton Station.

Brighton is a main line from Victoria destination, and has always been a favourite 'day trip' for Londoners.

This is not a kosminski thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rubyretro]

This is not a kosminski thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ooooops !!!
well and truly smacked then, Trevor !

sorry, sorry, sorry !!

[mariab]

Trevor Marriot wrote:
The report as it appears in the A_Z may be the full report it may not that is why I have asked Paul Begg to publish it in full as I beleive he may have it.In any event what has been posted from the report is "INCONCLUSIVE" so it is in the interest of all interested parties to co-operate in proving or disproving its authenticity.
Why does this remind me of the “redactions“ in the Special Brand Ledgers?

Chris wrote:
mariab,
Stewart did post some images earlier in this thread:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=2
Thank you so very much for posting this link. Tentatively I'd go out on a limb and say it looks like the addition on the left part of the page were a later addition by the same hand. At least it looks like this in post #89, which partly misses the right part of the page. In post #90 the last third of the right part of the page is so overexposed in light that it can't be deciphered on my computer screen, even when I play around with the settings. Possibly this might have happened when the file was uploaded online, as I've had the same problem myself sometimes when emailing photographed files to other parties.

Chris wrote:
I asked for permission from the Forensic Science Service, which holds the copyright. They consulted the author, who had no objection, and consented in principle, but said I should also ask for the consent of the Crime Museum, which commissioned the report. That's what hasn't been forthcoming.
We've had a similar situation with Rossini autographs held at the (nonforthcoming) museum in his natal city in Italy, and 2 summers ago I went there and shot pictures (furtively), and we're absolutely going to use these materials in the critical edition, forthcoming in 2015. No idea yet what the legal angle is about including facsimiles of these materials (in the form of my shot pictures) in the edition though. But my boss has legal representation.

In the A-Z “controversy“ about it being the full report or not, am I perceiving it correctly that there is some slight miscommunication among Ripperologists (i.e., the editors of A-Z and the rest)? Can it be that the root of the problem lies therein, and not in the copyright holder?
A thousand apologies if I misunderstood any of this.

[mariab]

Chris wrote:
Perhaps it's worth adding that when Davies refers to the passage of time between the known sample of Swanson's handwriting and the annotations, that is because the known sample comes from the late 1870s/early 1880s, and therefore predates the annotations by at least 30 years or so.
I can DEFINITELY confirm that handwriting changes in the course of 30 years, and I have documentation to prove this with autograph letters by the same person in different time frames.

Chris wrote:
Davies points out that the comparison was also made more difficult by the fact that, whereas the known handwriting was made in ink on previously blank pages, the annotations were made in pencil and some of them had to be fitted into the spaces around printed text.
This should not constitute a problem, really.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It's interesting to note that whilst the Swanson marginalia and end-paper notations are being displayed with white-gloved reverence in New Scotland Yard's Crime Museum there remains an official reluctance to make public the report upon which their provenance is based.

Why such reluctance? Have we been presented with a fait accompli? Are we to understand that the marginalia and endpaper notation have been entered into the historical record without due scientific examination and analysis?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

All of this leaves me pondering possibilities...

1) That the approach to the News of the World in 1981 did/did not happen.
(ref. The reply to Trevor's recent answer from The News of the World)

2) Whether the approach in 1981, if it did happen, did/did not contain mention of Kosminski. Because if it did, then it is something I would think was a very good catch for any newspaper. I would find it hard to see a reason for rejection. Changing ownership would not cover it, I feel.
(re. questioned by Trevor, earlier posting) But if it didn't, then we have a whole new ball game to consider.

3) The timing of the release of the marginalia and endpaper notation.
(1987) Was this co-incidental, one ponders? Why wait 6 more years to "try again". Especially with the 100 year anniversary arriving and a tide of books following on in it's wake.

4. Why is there still a reluctance, so many years later, to not release the report by the crime museum, even though it has been given the official ok by those who hold the copyright, and the author, who consented in principal.
(Re. Chris' posting earlier on this thread and re. Simon's posting, above)

5. If the crime museum is the holdup, then what possible problem can there be with witholding permission to publish the report if there is nothing untoward or problematical with the report. Will releasing this cause a problem for the crime museum, or Scotland Yard, or both?

These things make me wonder....hmmm.... "fait accompli" indeed.

There are some questions here that need answering. Because the game of hunt the Ripper doesn't become funny anymore if the world of Ripperology is still infested with any form of shenannigans. It would be an insult to very many, imho.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

5. If the crime museum is the holdup, then what possible problem can there be with witholding permission to publish the report if there is nothing untoward or problematical with the report. Will releasing this cause a problem for the crime museum, or Scotland Yard, or both?

All I can say is that having read it quite carefully I can't see anything "untoward or problematical" in it, or anything that would cause a problem for anyone.

[robhouse]

"All I can say is that having read it quite carefully I can't see anything "untoward or problematical" in it, or anything that would cause a problem for anyone."

Nor do I, nor do I see anything particularly suspicious about any of this. I think the more likely probability is that the the museum simply does not see that there is much validity to the claim that the document might be fake, and doent want to muddy the waters or create any confusion around the document's provenance. They probably do not think it is worth publicizing.

The document examiner in a nutshell concluded that there was "strong evidence to support the view that" Swanson wrote the "questioned" part of the marginalia (ie. the endpaper and notes in pencil on pg 138). Davies also added that he might alter his view if he were able to compare the writing with confirmed examples of Swanson's writing from a period closer to the presumed date he wrote that part of the marginalia. In other words, his ability to come to a more definite conclusion either pro or con, was hampered somewhat by having limited samples of Swanson's writing, from an earlier period.

Consider the following analogy. Say someone challenged the authenticity of a painting—for example a work by Van Gogh—in a museum collection. The museum decided to have the painting examined by an expert, who then concluded that there was "strong evidence to suggest that the painting was authentic." But he was not 100% certain... say he was 90 or 95% certain. Would the museum wish to publicize this conclusion? Quite probably not. For one thing, any doubt of authenticity (no matter how small) would lessen the value of the painting. Second, if the museum was confident of the authenticity (as I assume the Crime museum is of the marginalia), why bother confusing matters by issuing a statement that you are "pretty sure" the item is authentic. You would just ignore it, and say "yes, it is authentic."

In the case of the marginalia, I think it is quite possible that the only reason Davies was not able to declare that he was certain the questioned part was 100% authentic, is that he did not have good comparison samples.

RH

[mariab]

Rob House wrote:
In the case of the marginalia, I think it is quite possible that the only reason Davies was not able to declare that he was certain the questioned part was 100% authentic, is that he did not have good comparison samples.
Completely agree.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rob House wrote:
In the case of the marginalia, I think it is quite possible that the only reason Davies was not able to declare that he was certain the questioned part was 100% authentic, is that he did not have good comparison samples.
Completely agree.

But there are other forensic tests which have not been done which could prove or disprove the suggestion that the marginalia is not 100% authentic.

In my opinion and in the interest of historical accuracy that should be done in the light of the report which despite the way some seek to gloss over it is " INCONCLUSIVE.

I would have thought the Kosminski`ites on here would welcome the chance to add more weight to what is almost a non existant case againt him. or perhaps if it should prove to be fraudulent they cant live with that bitter taste it would leave.

Rest assured now i have got my teeth into this now I will take it to the end. Since posting earlier I am aware of some of the shenanigans which have taken place. So if anyone wants to talk to me in confidence free to PM me.

[mariab]

I'm most definitely not one of the Kozminsky`ites .

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In order to establish the authenticity of a painting it would have been subjected to an exhaustive series of scientific tests. This hasn't happened with the marginalia and end-paper notation, so until it does the most anyone can claim is that its authenticity is uncertain.

Hi Trevor,

I've PMd you.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm most definitely not one of the Kozminsky`ites .

Would you care to nail your colours to the mast then ?

[robhouse]

Trevor,

I would assume that the MET currently has other pressing issue to deal with and performing forensic tests on a document that there is no reason to believe is fake is not at the top of their priorities list.

The report was not inconclusive. He stated that the document was in all probability authentic, (on a scale of 1 to 9, in other words, an 8). And as I said, I think the only reason that Davies was unable to be 100% certain the set 2 notations were authentic, is that he did not have the proper comparison samples of Swanson's handwriting in old age. Davies proposed that it was likely that the slight differences in the two samples came from the fact that Swanson wrote the second set of annotations some years after the first. I would also add that one's handwriting can differ based on other factors... for example, if he was tired or had been drinking when he wrote the second. In any case, the differences are minor. And as I mentioned before, the endnotes were written in the same colored pencil as many of the marginalia notes on pg. 138, the only exception being the paragraph at the bottom of the page, which was done in ink (which, incidentally, Davies thought might be another explanation for any minor differences.)

I do not really have any interest in pursuing this further, despite being a "kosminski-ite," since I think it is rather a waste of time. But as you obviously disagree, please, go ahead and hire a forensics team... knock yourself out.

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I would assume that the MET currently has other pressing issue to deal with and performing forensic tests on a document that there is no reason to believe is fake is not at the top of their priorities list.

The report was not inconclusive. He stated that the document was in all probability authentic, and as I said, I think the only reason that he was unable to be 100% certain, is that he did not have the proper comparison samples of Swanson's handwriting in old age. Dabies proposed that it was likely that the slight differences in the two samples came from the fact that Swanson wrote the second set of annotations some years after the first. I would also add that one's handwriting can differ based on other factors... for example, if he was tired or had been drinking when he wrote the second. In any case, the differences are minor. And as I mentioned before, the endnotes were written in the same colored pencil as many of the marginalia notes on pg. 138, the only exception being the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

I do not really have any interest in pursuing this further, despite being a "kosminski-ite," since I think it is rather a waste of time. But as you obviously disagree, please, go ahead and hire a forensics team... knock yourself out.

RH

I do not consider them to be minor differences, and besides It matters not how minor the differences are they are sufficent to cause a doubt and its not a waste of time trying to prove or disprove them.

It should not be for me to pay for the tests it should be down to the Met police. However i am prepared to meet that cost.

So Mr House I guess there is no point in coming to you for a contribution towards the cost.

As a professional investigator its the minor differences that sometimes solves cases.