There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ally, the word provenance is bandied about a lot with regard to the Swanson copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life which contains the 'Swanson marginalia'. I actually prefer to use two descriptions with regard to the pencilled annotations in this book. First you have the marginalia, obviously written in the margins in the text of the book. Then you have the rear free endpaper notes, which are not 'marginalia'.

The provenance of the actual book cannot be doubted and was left to the late Jim Swanson by his aunt, Alice Julia, when she died in 1981. Jim Swanson was an executor of her will. It indicates in The Jack the Ripper A-Z that these annotations were made 'in or about 1910', which is the year the book was published. But, of course, the actual date that these annotations were made is a total unknown. Ergo the provenance of the actual book is not one and the same thing as the provenance of the annotations as we don't know when they were written.

At the time Jim Swanson inherited the book, in 1981, he also inherited several of Donald Swanson's papers. These led him to look at the book and he discovered the annotations. It was then, in 1981, that he sold the rights to a story on the annotations to The News of the World. In the event that newspaper did not use the story. In 1987 the Ripper centenary was in the news and 7 books on the Ripper were published.

A few weeks after reading Martin Fido's, The Crimes Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, Jim Swanson contacted the Daily Telegraph and they bought the story of the 'marginalia.' Journalist Charles Nevin went to see Jim Swanson, and the book, at his home. The story was published in the newspaper. At this time Martin Fido was also in touch with Charles Nevin and had a letter published in the Daily Telegraph a short while later. This was in October 1987.

Jim Swanson gave his reasons for going to the newspaper with the story because he did not like a lot of the 'rubbish about Jack the Ripper' that had appeared in the press, and that as he 'had proof of Jack's identity' he 'felt it only fair to his grandfather and Anderson to make the facts known.' He wanted to get some recognition of the part his grandfather played and show that the senior people at Scotland Yard 'were on the ball and were completely satisfied they knew his identity and that he had been safely put away.'

Stewart

When Jim Swanson offered the annotations to the News of The World in 1981 do we know 100% if they contained the name of Kosminski. It seems to me that knowing how newspapers operate they probabaly would not have bothered printing the story without it containing the name of Kosminski which could be why they never bothered printing the story in the end.

This is a very important issue !

[Phil Carter]

It would be interesting to see if this is a policy decision by the Met, perhaps a letter to the Commissioner would not go amiss.

Hello Stewart, Chris, Rob, all,

Excuse the intended bump up on this thread, but since these postings, have we heard anything from the Met with regard to publishing/non-publishing of the Davies report? If, as you fear Chris, it is a decsion related to policy, one asks what reason this policy is in place for in this instance. It would certainly be of much help to us all. I for one would like to see this report to view with my own eyes.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

New A-Z

Hello Stewart, Chris, Rob, all,
Excuse the intended bump up on this thread, but since these postings, have we heard anything from the Met with regard to publishing/non-publishing of the Davies report? If, as you fear Chris, it is a decsion related to policy, one asks what reason this policy is in place for in this instance. It would certainly be of much help to us all. I for one would like to see this report to view with my own eyes.
best wishes
Phil

The report by Christopher Davies M.A., D.Phil. is quoted at length, as much as you need to know I believe, in the new A-Z.

[Chris]

Excuse the intended bump up on this thread, but since these postings, have we heard anything from the Met with regard to publishing/non-publishing of the Davies report?

I've heard nothing more.

As Stewart says, some salient excerpts are quoted in the new "A to Z," including Davies's conclusion that "there is strong evidence to support the proposition that Swanson wrote the questioned annotations."

He went on to explain rather precisely what he meant by that phrase, so as permission has (presumably) been given for it to be quoted in the "A to Z," I hope it will be in order for me to quote that explanation here:

In expressing my conclusion I have used the following nine point conclusion scale:

1. ... wrote ...
2. very strong evidence to support the view ... wrote ...
3. strong evidence to support the view ... wrote ...
4. moderate evidence to support the view ... wrote ...
5. inconclusive
6. moderate evidence to support the view ... did not write ...
7. strong evidence to support the view ... did not write ...
8. very strong evidence to support the view ... did not write ...
9. ... did not write ...

[Trevor Marriott]

The report by Christopher Davies M.A., D.Phil. is quoted at length, as much as you need to know I believe, in the new A-Z.

The examiners report is inconclusive. There is obvioulsy a doubt about the authenticity of the marginalia.

In the intersts of historical accuracy I have recenty written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with regards to a number of issues which I feel warrant further tests and examinations being carried out on the marginalia which they now have in their possession in the crime museum.

My letter finished up on the curators desk of the crime museum and he in turn replied by e mail quoting the same forensic report. He stated that to carry out the new foresnsic tests I suggested would be an expensive excercise and would mean that the case would have to be re opened and a team of detectives asssigned.

I explained that there would be no need to assign a team of officers to re open the case. The Met police could recruit me as a "special constable" as i am fully au fait with the case and \i would be happy to assist.

I asked that my reply be sent back to the commissioners officer for further consideration. To date the curator has not acknowleged my reply nor have i had any further communication back from the commissioners office.

I will not let the matter rest this is another clear example of The Met police being deliberatly obstructive in this case.

Whilst on the subject of the marginalia I did some enquiries with The News of the World regarding the suggestion that James Swanson did a deal with the paper way back in the 80`s. I am told there is no record of this and his name does not appear on theier database.

If anyone can throw any further light on this It would be much appreciated.

If there have been any shenanigans going on with this marginalia then i intend to get to the bottom of it. If there is something wrong with the marginalia then it should be proved to be wrong. Likewise if there is nothing wrong with it then this should be proved.

"The Truth is out there "

[Chris]

It's a shame that it's not possible for the report to be published, because I think that would actually resolve a lot of the doubts people have about the annotations.

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.

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.

These were the factors that made it difficult for him to come to a more definite conclusion about the authorship of the annotations.

[mariab]

In the hope this doesn't sound completely disrespectful and outlandish, I would be SO interested to have a look at the hands in the main text and the penciled in annotations. I'm routinely working with situations just like this, in libretto and music sketches from the early to mid 19th century, identifying hands and reconstructing the different versions. (Albeit without having ANY credentials whatsoever in identifying handwritings, unlike the notorious Elaine Quigley.)

[Chris]

mariab

Stewart did post some images earlier in this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=2

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart, Trevor, Chris,

Thank you for the replies.

Chris,

What is the actual root problem with the report not being published, and from whom is it actually the responsibility of when the decision is made.. the Commisssioner of the Metropolitan Police? If that be the case, do I presume these additional writings/notations in this book (the memoranda) have attained some sort of legal historical document status and thereby has an influence on whether this report be published or nay? Please do excuse me for second-guessing, as I honestly have no idea.

Trevor,

That is most interesting indeed. I once again look forward to any response you may get from the above mentioned authorities. The News of the World have no record of this approach from 1981 you say? Hmmm.

Stewart,

Indeed, I did read the relevant text from the new edition of the A-Z, but wondered, like Chris, above, for the same reason as he... clarity for all interested parties.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Stewart, Trevor, Chris,

Thank you for the replies.

Chris,

What is the actual root problem with the report not being published, and from whom is it actually the responsibility of when the decision is made.. the Commisssioner of the Metropolitan Police? If that be the case, do I presume these additional writings/notations in this book (the memoranda) have attained some sort of legal historical document status and thereby has an influence on whether this report be published or nay? Please do excuse me for second-guessing, as I honestly have no idea.

Trevor,

That is most interesting indeed. I once again look forward to any response you may get from the above mentioned authorities. The News of the World have no record of this approach from 1981 you say? Hmmm.

Stewart,

Indeed, I did read the relevant text from the new edition of the A-Z, but wondered, like Chris, above, for the same reason as he... clarity for all interested parties.

best wishes

Phil

I believe Paul Begg was instrumental in arranging for the examination by the forensic expert to be done.

If that be the case i would urge Mr Begg or whoever has that report to publish a copy of the orginal on here for us all to see and to ensure nothing of importance has been left out. !!

[Chris]

What is the actual root problem with the report not being published, and from whom is it actually the responsibility of when the decision is made.. the Commisssioner of the Metropolitan Police?

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.

[robhouse]

If the copyright holder consented, I do not really see why the report cannot be posted...

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

If the copyright holder consented, I do not really see why the report cannot be posted...

Rob

please read my previous post for a current update.

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.

[Errata]

Isn't there another factor at play here, regardless of the authenticity of the document? Isn't there a certain "believability factor" missing in both the book and marginalia?

I could believe that they took a suspect to a remote seaside inn to be identified by a reluctant witness, a witness who confirmed the identification but refused to testify IF the story then ended with something like "But the suspect died shortly after of pneumonia. Or an accident. Or falling down an elevator shaft onto a hail of bullets."

I don't understand why they would take the suspect to an inn, as opposed to say, a police station. I don't know why a fellow Jew would be reluctant to identify him. I don't know why a fellow Jew would have a problem with him being hanged. I don't understand why the police, after learning the identity of Jack the Ripper wouldn't find a way to charge him without the witness. Or if they were unable to come up with something, find a way to permanently neutralize him. I don't know why they would let him go, and apparently lose track of him in the asylum. I don't know why the marginalia would be wrong.

[Rubyretro]

I could believe that they took a suspect to a remote seaside inn

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.

Hove (once a separate village, but so close that it has long been swallowed up by Brighton) is known for it's retirement homes (and indeed I worked in one, when I lived there).