There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

Hi All,
Anderson only thought he knew, and according to this supposedly sensational marginalia, Swanson thought Kosminski was the suspect in question, and appeared to think he would have been convicted if only the Jewish witness had testified. The reference to no more murders taking place is a classic sign of mere personal belief, and one which we find attached to any and every suspect who was off the streets by the required point in time. It's totally unsatisfying as a QED and becomes redundant with any actual evidence. So a faker would have had to provide something pretty strong to make the newspapers go "Wow, this Swanson guy actually knew".
...
Caz
X

But... the Daily Telegraph did go 'wow' in October 1987 when Jim Swanson sold them the story. Nevin described the 'marginalia' as "...a piece of hard evidence: nothing less than the identification of Jack the Ripper by the solid, stolid Scots Chief Inspector who investigated the Whitechapel Murders."

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

And, of course, when more recently the press covered the story of Nevill Swanson placing the Anderson book in the Crime Museum they again claimed that 'Jack the Ripper' had been identified by Swanson in the 'marginalia' - apparently unaware that it was old news.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for that supplement. Intruiging to say the least.
I also note, from back at that time, that The News of the World had a reputation for sensationalism in it's headlines and stories. The fact that The Telegraph thought it a "coup" 6 years later really does ask the question "what was the reason for The News of the World to turn the story down in the first place?" Surely, this news IS sensational, no? I would have thought so?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Bbc

Hello all,

Here is the BBC follow up report..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5173314.stm

Note the wording..

"...This marked the re-launch of the museum which features exhibits from famous cases dating back to 1875. "

and here..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5177646.stm

"....He (Kosminski) became a suspect after he was allegedly spotted at the scene of the murder of Elizabeth Stride, believed to be the Ripper's third victim.

(my emphasis)

Err, when did Kosminski become a named suspect again?

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Stewart P. Evans wrote:
When I first examined it 'in the flesh' some twelve years later I was very surprised to see the variations in the handwriting and pencil used - which were visible to the naked eye but had not been previously noted. I have detailed this before and I don't intend to do so again now.
I would be very interested in more detailed information about this. As a newbie, might I inquire, is this discussed in Scotland Yard investigates? (Which I'll read very soon.)

Chris wrote:
As for the lack of any record of correspondence with the News of the World, I don't understand why you raised it in the first place. You say "There may well have been some correspondence between Swanson and The NOW in 1981 regarding the marginalia". That being the case - and given the fact that Charles Nevin was shown correspondence with the News of the World in 1987, so we know there was correspondence - what can we learn from the fact that the newspaper can find no record of it now, apart from something about the way they organise their archives?
Unless it's going to be suggested that the annotations were doctored without Jim Swanson's knowledge and that he didn't notice any difference, then he would obviously have been aware in 1987 that some of the annotations were fake. Obviously, he also knew that the journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations in their original form.
It's suggested that, knowing all that, he arranged for the annotations to be published in a national newspaper, where the News of the World journalist would be able to see them and detect the fake. And as if that wasn't enough, that he actually wrote to the News of the World to tell them that he was arranging for the annotations to be published - as if to make sure they didn't miss it!
To my mind that's a wildly implausible story, even judged by the prevailing standards of Ripperology...
All this sounds very-very sensible to me.
Chris wrote:
But to be perfectly frank, the way you're going about it, I think you have virtually no chance of getting permission for any further testing. As I've already pointed out, you would need the family's permission before anything could be done. Saying publicly that you think some of the annotations were faked after 1981 is hardly calculated to enlist their sympathy - to say the least!
I fully agree with this as well. In a similar situation, we were very careful not to offend the Verdi family when examining the composer's autograph sketches. Obviously this is a less “politically charged“ situation than the Swanson marginalia, still, it's obvious that without the “good graces“ of the family access to the sources will never occur.

[Trevor Marriott]

Stewart P. Evans wrote:
When I first examined it 'in the flesh' some twelve years later I was very surprised to see the variations in the handwriting and pencil used - which were visible to the naked eye but had not been previously noted. I have detailed this before and I don't intend to do so again now.
I would be very interested in more detailed information about this. As a newbie, might I inquire, is this discussed in Scotland Yard investigates? (Which I'll read very soon.)

Chris wrote:
As for the lack of any record of correspondence with the News of the World, I don't understand why you raised it in the first place. You say "There may well have been some correspondence between Swanson and The NOW in 1981 regarding the marginalia". That being the case - and given the fact that Charles Nevin was shown correspondence with the News of the World in 1987, so we know there was correspondence - what can we learn from the fact that the newspaper can find no record of it now, apart from something about the way they organise their archives?
Unless it's going to be suggested that the annotations were doctored without Jim Swanson's knowledge and that he didn't notice any difference, then he would obviously have been aware in 1987 that some of the annotations were fake. Obviously, he also knew that the journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations in their original form.
It's suggested that, knowing all that, he arranged for the annotations to be published in a national newspaper, where the News of the World journalist would be able to see them and detect the fake. And as if that wasn't enough, that he actually wrote to the News of the World to tell them that he was arranging for the annotations to be published - as if to make sure they didn't miss it!
To my mind that's a wildly implausible story, even judged by the prevailing standards of Ripperology...
All this sounds very-very sensible to me.
Chris wrote:
But to be perfectly frank, the way you're going about it, I think you have virtually no chance of getting permission for any further testing. As I've already pointed out, you would need the family's permission before anything could be done. Saying publicly that you think some of the annotations were faked after 1981 is hardly calculated to enlist their sympathy - to say the least!
I fully agree with this as well. In a similar situation, we were very careful not to offend the Verdi family when examining the composer's autograph sketches. Obviously this is a less “politically charged“ situation than the Swanson marginalia, still, it's obvious that without the “good graces“ of the family access to the sources will never occur.

Well the die has been cast now lets just and wait to see how it all unfolds. I do so love a mystery

[mariab]

At any rate, the best of lucks with all your efforts, Mr. Marriott, especially with the Special Branch ledgers.
(By the by, we watched From Hell a little while ago – I know, embarrassing – and one quote kinda stayed on my mind: “You don't f*ck with the Special Branch, or the Special Branch will f*ck you.“...)

[Simon Wood]

Wise words, Maria. Guess where Trevor used to work.

[mariab]

Hello Mr. Wood,
I KNOW where Mr. Marriott used to work! (I'm almost tempted to say “lucky him“...)
By the by, did you already “get your ducks in a row“ about that theory you were entertaining, and would you (at some point) care to share the mysterious alleged new evidence you are in possession of which might blow L.J. Palmer's conclusions out of the water? I'm kinda curious here. (And I know: curiosity killed the cat...)

[Roy Corduroy]

Absolutely. A number of us have seen copies of the report...

Good afternoon Chris,

How did that work? Did you go somewhere, like to the crime lab or museum and read it? I don't understand.

Roy

[Chris]

How did that work? Did you go somewhere, like to the crime lab or museum and read it? I don't understand.

Someone was kind enough to send me a copy, but it turned out they weren't really authorised to do so.

As I mentioned, I have tried my best to get permission to make the report freely available, but I haven't been successful. However, I do feel that the extracts in the new edition of the A-Z (preferably combined with the bit of context I added above) do give a fair reflection of Davies's conclusions.

If I felt there was any significant information being suppressed I would paraphrase it here, but I don't. I realise that's no substitute for people being able to read the report for themselves, but it's the best I can do.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you, Chris

Christopher Davies joined the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory in 1981 and was employed solely as a questioned document examiner. He is a senior document examiner in the London laboratory of the Forensic Science Service.

And he examined it.

I believe, Chris you said he gave it a 3 out of ten with 1 being the top. Maybe I am missing something here. I don't see what further testing can possibly be done if the top man in London has already done it.

Roy

[Chris]

I believe, Chris you said he gave it a 3 out of ten with 1 being the top. Maybe I am missing something here. I don't see what further testing can possibly be done if the top man in London has already done it.

The only sample of Swanson's handwriting he had for comparison was around 30 years (or more) earlier than the annotations. He indicated that he might have been able to be more definite if he'd had a sample from closer to 1910. I think such samples are available. Also if he'd had a sample written in pencil. I'm not so sure about that.

[mariab]

The 30 years difference is an important hurdle. The pencil vs. ink thing is not an issue.

[Stewart P Evans]

Letter

The only sample of Swanson's handwriting he had for comparison was around 30 years (or more) earlier than the annotations. He indicated that he might have been able to be more definite if he'd had a sample from closer to 1910. I think such samples are available. Also if he'd had a sample written in pencil. I'm not so sure about that.

They could have asked me - I have posted this before, it's a page from a letter written by Swanson to Anderson after 1901. It was in the collection of Anderson correspondence that I purchased some years ago.