There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[caz]

Indeed, Chris. That makes admirable sense, as in:

"Ah yes, of course. That was it. The fellow's name was Kosminski."

Could have been like a name that's on the tip of your tongue, but you just can't dredge it up. Just writing the notes and reading them through may have finally done the trick.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

Caz makes a good point, in that 'Kosminski was the suspect' runs against the general written style of the marginalia and could have been written that way for emphasis. If it was a Jim Swanson 'note to self', he wouldn't have had to put the dash ahead of it.

Could it have been something of a family tradition that Kosminski was the killer, and Jim Swanson, wanting some recognition for his grandfather, thought it would be easier to get it published with a name rather than 'the suspect'?

[caz]

Hi Chava,

Just a quick clarification in case anyone gets misled.

My speculation was based on Donald's possible reasons for writing the sentence that way, not Jim's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

Hi Caz, I'm sorry, I meant it that way as well and should have dropped a 'graph for the comments about Jim.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Charles Nevin, its helpful to have your impressions here as the journalist who wrote the feature of Jim Swanson himself .What you say also tallies with what the other writers say viz Martin Fido, Paul Beg and Stewart Evans etc.
I think it likely that it was Donald Swanson himself,perhaps having tried to remember the exact syllable pattern of the name Kosminski,decided to write it down for the record and initial same.He probably read the book repeatedly and was asked about the Ripper investigation by various friends and on different occasions and as Caz and Chris suggest,he probably wrote the name down for the purpose of swift recall.The end notes certainly look like they were written at a different time from the margin notes-but they belong to the same chapter and event.
This seems to have been the most likely thing to have happened.
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Gentlemen, Ladies:

A fascinating discussion ... I must point out, though, once again, as the then Daily Telegraph journalist concerned, that Jim Swanson was not paid any money for the story ... My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it ... for what it's worth, Jim Swanson also seemed to me a pretty straight kind of guy who then decided to give the story to the newspaper he read and trusted ... and I'm fairly sure, too, that M Fido's book came out some time after my article ...Regards, Charles N

Yes thanks for that incite Charles. Most useful.

Pirate Jack

[Ally]

Charles,

I don't think anyone who might possibly believe that the marginalia might be faked considers for a moment that money would have been the motive, so whether or not he was paid would have been irrelevant. The speculation of why it would have been forged, if it was, is more along the lines of pride of history or ancestry, than financial benefit.

[Chris Scott]

With regard to people wondering why Swanson would initial notes in his own book, it may be worth comparing this with the "Littlechild marginalia" below. In one of these Littlechild initialled the note, and in the other he signed it in full and even puts his rank
Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly there are points of contact - though surely that's only to be expected if the "marginalia" and Fido are dealing with the same events - but looking at the details, there are a lot of things in the "marginalia" that don't sit well with the idea that a hypothetical faker could have based them on Fido's book.

True enough, Chris - although just as clever fakers might "age" a piece of paper, it's conceivable that the "aging" of a person's memory could be achieved by including some touch-points, but with the odd "lapse" dotted here and there for good measure. That way the end-product would neither appear too good to be true, nor too close to the source for comfort. There's also the chance that misunderstandings or over-simplification of a source might lead to such errors.

Unlikely in this case, perhaps - given the timings - but, nonetheless, possibilities to be considered if one were being ultra-careful.

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting Sam.This also crossed my mind.It was why I asked how old the gentleman was.
Also, "faking" can take many forms----from faking a bit of dottiness or deafness [-copping a deafen"] to our heroes putting telescopes to their blind eye like Nelson !
I am not suggesting fakery happened,I really doubt it did, but it can"t be "automatically" ruled out because so and so was such a darling old dear or whatever- anything at all to do with the Ripper seems to engage people"s wits like nobody"s business.

[Robert]

In this universe, nothing whatsoever can be ruled out. I just think that the fakery scenario is a highly unlikely one.

[Septic Blue]

With regard to Swanson's "Stepney Workhouse":

The use of some sort of 'vernacular', on the part of Donald Swanson, is a distinct possibility; as is fading memory, after all those years.

But so too, is a failed attempt on the part of one of his five children to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

- "failed" in as much as some of the 'facts' are inaccurate.

Any of these three possibilities does more to validate the content of the margin/end notes; than does the insistence that the notes are of genuine provenance simply because ... one says so.

[Chris]

Earlier this year Nevill Swanson kindly gave permission for me to look at the Swanson marginalia, and Alan McCormick arranged for me to visit the Crime Museum to see them. I thought it might be useful to post a few observations here.

The first relates to the difference between the colours of the pencilled annotations. It appears that the only annotations on p. 138 written in the slightly purplish pencil are those directly under the text, beginning "because the suspect was also a Jew" and ending with the initials "D.S.S." The rest of the writing on that page (including "Known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID") seems blacker, like the writing on the rear endpaper. I think all the underlining (including the underlining of "also a Jew" in the purplish annotation at the bottom) has been done with a blacker pencil (though I am not entirely sure about the underlining beneath "identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"). On the previous page there is underlining from "During my absence" to the end of the main text, and this also appears to have been done with the blacker pencil.

Below is a diagram that Rob House made, showing the blacker annotations highlighted in yellow. Because part of the purplish writing has been underlined with the blacker pencil, it appears that the purplish writing at the bottom came first.

(NB This agrees with an observation R. J. Palmer made on the old boards about the difference in colouring between the side and bottom annotations on p. 138, based on this coloured image:
http://www.casebook.org/images/marginalia4.jpg)



Just a couple of other details relating to Swanson's ownership of the book. Inside the front cover is written "Donald S. Swanson 3 Presburg Rd New Malden". Swanson appears to have moved to Presburg Road from 1 Stockwell Park Walk, Brixton, between the date of the 1911 census (in April) and the end of 1912, as he appears at Presburg Road in the 1913 Kelly's Directory of Surrey (online at www.historicaldirectories.org). So unless he delayed writing his name in the book for some reason, it appears he didn't receive his copy until a while after its publication in 1910.

What's rather confusing is that a letter from Anderson to Swanson dated 25 December 1905 has been pasted on to the front endpaper of the book (see http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=82 for a scan of this letter). As this letter was written five years before the book was published, it obviously doesn't belong there, and I can only assume it was pasted there later by someone under the mistaken impression that it had accompanied the book. Underneath the letter is an inscription which has previously been read as "To Donald with very good wishes from Fred".

[robhouse]

I tried to do a little color adjustment on the photo at the link, and I think it maybe helps a bit to see the difference in colors.

I think this is interesting, because it suggests that Swanson wrote the paragraph at the bottom of the page first, then sometime later—perhaps weeks, months, or even years later—went back and wrote the other notes on that page AND the endpaper notes on the same occasion.

This might better explain why he wrote "continued from page 138"... in other words, if the endpaper notes were "continued" (written) immediately after he wrote the stuff on page 138 (a. the notes in the left margin, b. the note about "known to head officers of CID" and c. the underlines.) It would mean he simply ran out of space, etc.

Rob H

[robhouse]

I feel I should also like to point out that it is impossible to compare the color of the pencil markings in the two photographs below, since the photographs are clearly not color balanced the same. We would only be able to truly do this if the two photos were taken in identical lighting conditions, with the same camera, set to the same exposure, with the same white balance (or color tempurature, if actual film), etc, etc.

Just looking at these two photos, it is clear that the paper in the image on the left looks very yellow/reddish, while the paper on the right looks very muted gray off-white.

I am guessing (without seeing the actual book) that the same paper was used throughout. (This may of course be wrong.) But my guess is simply that the two photos were taken at different times, different white balance, etc. So we cannot look at these and say "yes, it is clear one color pencil is used on pg 138, and another color pencil is used on the endpaper."

However, as can be seen in the photo in my previous post, the different color pencils on page 138 are quite clear. And in my opinion, it is strange, with all due respect, that no one has ever commented on this before. (my apologies if someone has, and I was not aware of it.)

RH