There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[robhouse]

I have tried to do some color correction, to make the two samples more similar. This was not entirely successful... To accurately assess the situation, one would have to see the marginalia in person as Chris did. I have not seen it myself.

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

Photographs

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

The photographs that I took of the marginalia and the endpaper notes were taken at the same time in identical lighting (bright sunshine daylight), with the same camera on the same setting. The differences can be seen. And, as I have described, were clearly visible to the naked eye.

The pages of the book (ergo page 138) are of a different paper, a heavier stock, to that of the rear free endpaper, which is lighter. But I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The differences have been confirmed by the official document examiner.

[Chris]

But I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The differences have been confirmed by the official document examiner.

The point I was making is that the difference in colour is between (1) the annotation at the bottom of page 138 and (2) the rest of the annotations (including those in the margin of page 138) - not between (1) the annotations on page 138 as a whole and (2) the annotations on the endpaper.

In other words, the 'original' annotation read "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind. D.S.S." and all the rest appears to be a later addition. (I don't mean to imply an addition by someone other than Swanson, of course.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Understood

The point I was making is that the difference in colour is between (1) the annotation at the bottom of page 138 and (2) the rest of the annotations (including those in the margin of page 138) - not between (1) the annotations on page 138 as a whole and (2) the annotations on the endpaper.
In other words, the 'original' annotation read "because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind. D.S.S." and all the rest appears to be a later addition. (I don't mean to imply an addition by someone other than Swanson, of course.)

Yes, I am aware of, and understood, what you said Chris, I was wondering what point Rob was making regarding the conditions of the photography possibly in relation to the photographs I had taken.

When you saw the marginalia and annotations 'in the flesh' were you, like me, struck by how much they had apparently faded?

[Chris]

Yes, I am aware of, and understood, what you said Chris, I was wondering what point Rob was making regarding the conditions of the photography possibly in relation to the photographs I had taken.

I think Rob was just being cautious about asserting on the basis of the photographs that the colour of the side annotation on p. 138 matched that of the endpaper annotation. They did look consistent to me when I saw the book.

When you saw the marginalia and annotations 'in the flesh' were you, like me, struck by how much they had apparently faded?

Certainly they appeared faint. Whether that was the result of fading I don't know.

[Stewart P Evans]

Marginalia

Apropos of the differences in the marginalia on page 138 of the book, I took the following close-ups in an effort to capture that, as I say the writing was very faded -

[Stewart P Evans]

Faded

I think Rob was just being cautious about asserting on the basis of the photographs that the colour of the side annotation on p. 138 matched that of the endpaper annotation. They did look consistent to me when I saw the book.
Certainly they appeared faint. Whether that was the result of fading I don't know.

The reason I used the word faded was because the photocopies and other reproductions I had earlier seen (from 1988) looked much darker. Also I felt that an original pencilled annotation would have been darker.

[Stewart P Evans]

Close-up

Here's my close-up of the note about the pressman higher up on the page -



The colour variations are due to the fact that I have adjusted the images to make the writing more legible.

[Stewart P Evans]

Full-Page

A full-page shot - no adjustment made -



I think that the light I was using (sunlight) was too strong and it may be seen in the light variations on the page.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Point

The point about all this, of course, is the one that I have suggested all along. And that is not that there is fakery afoot (as some contend) but that Swanson may have added the endpaper notes some considerable time later when his faculties may not have been what they once were. This may then account for the anomalies and bad grammar present only in the endpaper notes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Endpaper Notes

Here is my full-page photograph of the endpaper notes with no adjustment (the lighter weight endpaper stock is discernable) -



N.B. I retain the copyright on all the photographs I have posted in this thread and they are not to be reproduced without permission.

[robhouse]

Stewart,

I was simply saying that you could not really compare the color in the two photos because they were not color balanced the same... and this is apparently because, as you said, you adjusted them somewhat to make the text more legible. These other photos you have posted are much better. I was not being critical.

However, I do think that this must cause us to reconsider this issue of the different colored pencils somewhat. Specifically, in terms of what Swanson wrote at different times. It would seem to me likely that he wrote all the highlighted text (highlighted yellow in Chris's first post) on the same occasion.

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

Photographs

Stewart,
I was simply saying that you could not really compare the color in the two photos because they were not color balanced the same... and this is apparently because, as you said, you adjusted them somewhat to make the text more legible. These other photos you have posted are much better. I was not being critical.
However, I do think that this must cause us to reconsider this issue of the different colored pencils somewhat. Specifically, in terms of what Swanson wrote at different times. It would seem to me likely that he wrote all the highlighted text (highlighted yellow in Chris's first post) on the same occasion.
RH

Rob, the colour has nothing to do with the photographs as it was apparent to the naked eye before I took my photos of it. The photographs were taken for use in The Ultimate Sourcebook (Companion) which Keith and I were in the final stages of completion at that time.

I did notice that not all the marginal notes on page 138 were in the same pencil, hence the close-ups I took which I have posted on this thread. However, the essential difference was between the marginalia at the bottom of the page and that on the rear free endpaper. I have to admit that I worded it badly when I said the writing on page 138 which does sound all-inclusive. But, as you can see, the differences were apparent and visible to the naked eye.

The highlighting of the different colour, in your scans, is great as it proves the point graphically and, of course, it clearly shows the original text as opposed to that added later.

[robhouse]

Hello Stewart,

I admit I did not notice the color difference on pg 138 myself, even though the difference in color is pretty clear on the image that was posted on this thread some time ago. Now that I see it, it is quite apparent, and I am surprised no one (myself included) noticed or commented on it before.

For example, it seems clear that the underlines under "also a Jew" and "identified the suspect the instant.." is in a different color pencil than the purplish pencil in the paragraph at the bottom of the page. I am not clear, however, if the underlines are in the same color as the pencil in the left margin, and I think it is even a possibility that Swanson made notes/marking on more than two occasions. (Chris suggested this possibility at one point after he saw the document.) The underlines seem that they might be thicker somewhat than the lines of the text in the left margin notes, but I could be wrong here. Obviously, it would require a careful analysis by a document examiner to determine exactly which marks were made with the same pencil. It does appear to my layman's eye, that the note "known to head officers CID" seems to be in the same pencil (and handwriting) as the endpaper.

In any case, this is food for thought. It seems to me likely that at least some, if not about half, of the notes and markings on page 138 were made at the same time as the endpaper notes. And perhaps it was only the purplish paragraph at the bottom that was made on an earlier occasion.

RH

[robhouse]

Not to beat a dead horse, so to speak... but I do think this is a relevant point, since several people seem to have been assuming that the two sets of annotations (written on different occasions) were a) those written on pg 138 and b) those written on the endpaper. This is clearly not correct, nor is it I believe what Davies said.

Several people have suggested that the endpaper notes are somewhat suspicious, perhaps especially suspicious in that it is here that we find the name "Kosminski." As Ally stated in the post that started this thread:

"The important marginalia, containing the name Kosminski, is written on an end paper and in a different pencil than can be found anywhere else in the book."

So I think it is important to correct the record here, and try to look at this whole thing as objectively as possible.

Rob H