There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[evilina]

The original text is actually the printed word. The marginalia itself is effectively tampering. That, however, is not my point. Firstly, the red lines are not an attempt at deception - nobody thinks they were trying to be taken as marks made by the orginal Swanson. They are a regretable but have no impact on the validity of the document. The pencil lines are more of a concern, however underlining existing text does not really change the content of the message. As to the validity of the document from a researchers point of view, I think that the whole arguement could be approached from another direction. Are there other examples of his annotations and /or notes? Stylistically was he likely to use some of the perculiarities found in the margin notes? Analysis of Swanson's writing samples would give as much evidence as checking handwriting samples.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ally and Robert,

sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in what I said last night (it was late). I have it on good authorirty (ies) that it is virtually impossible to date the actual pencil markings. Unlike the chemical make up with ink and its interaction with paper (which is what is tested in terms of diary ink etc), for pencils the way they have been made has been similar for centuries and one source of graphite can be used to make many pencils. While some chemical anaylsis on pencils may be possible in theory, in practical terms it is not possible. A major problem is that clay used in pencils is also used in the manufacture of paper.There is, in acuality, no such thing as a victorian age appropriate pencil.

While it may be possible to compare the pencil markings with a specific pencil and see if it is similar or to compare two markings and see if they were written with similar pencils, it would be difficult to conclude it was the same pencil as so many similar ones are in cirulcation.

It would seem other aspects such as handwriting and literay anaylsis would be the best course of action. And I beleive similar tests have been done. Although the exact scope and range of these tests and the full reports have never been made public (though the 06 test was partly quoted in the most recent A-Z).

Anyhow, thought i would share this as it is interesting info.

Hope this makes sense.

As I said before for my own curiosities sake I would be intrigued to know what the 06 report said!

Hope you are both well

Jenni

I have asked the same question however answers have not been forthcoming.

It would seem that the authors of the A_Z had a copy but like other documents they decline to make them public in their entirety.

Alan McCormick at the crime museum had a copy now his has "gone missing".

But dont panic folks help is at hand I have traced the wherabouts of another copy and I am taking steps as we speak to obtain that copy which I will gladly publish in full.

It may take some time as the postman only deleivers to me here in "La La Land" once a week

[Chris]

As I have explained before, I tried previously to get permission to publish the report on Casebook, but the copyright holders (the Forensic Science Service) said I should ask the permission of the person who commissioned the report (Alan McCormick) and that was not forthcoming. If it had been I should have posted the report here 18 months ago, but as it wasn't I didn't.

[Ally]

Hi Chris,

I did scroll back looking for the answer to the question I am about to ask (word searched and everything) but was unable to find it, so please excuse if you've answered this before.

Do you mind letting us know if there was a reason given for the refusal to publish, and if so, what was it, or was it just a flat no?

[Chris]

Do you mind letting us know if there was a reason given for the refusal to publish, and if so, what was it, or was it just a flat no?

I was told initially that the report had never been intended for public consumption. My request apparently needed to be referred to a higher authority within the Met, but I never received any further response, despite a couple of attempts to follow the matter up.

[mariab]

Exactly as I pictured it, then.

[Monty]

No wonder McCormick has gone to ground, with the silly slobber that's being banded about.

Monty

[mariab]

Yes, these things are meant to be resolved away from the boards, before considering posting the report in question.

[Robert]

Maybe I'm being dense here, but does not the comparatively recent research by Chris and Rob, which indicates that Woolf Abrahams was Aaron's brother rather than brother-in-law, suggest that even laying aside arguments as to good character, forensic arguments etc, the marginalia are likely to be genuine? Surely a forger would have written "On suspect's return to his brother-in-law's house"?

I am not making a judgement on whether Swanson's and Anderson's story actually holds water, but am concentrating on the authenticity of the marginalia.

[Chris]

Maybe I'm being dense here, but does not the comparatively recent research by Chris and Rob, which indicates that Woolf Abrahams was Aaron's brother rather than brother-in-law, suggest that even laying aside arguments as to good character, forensic arguments etc, the marginalia are likely to be genuine? Surely a forger would have written "On suspect's return to his brother-in-law's house"?

Unfortunately it's not quite that easy, because the mistake about Woolf being Aaron's brother-in-law hadn't yet been made in 1987. In his book, Martin Fido simply quotes the contemporary records which refer to Woolf (Kozminski) as Aaron's brother.

[lynn cates]

4 words

Hello Robert. I wonder whether Ally was questioning the entire "Marginalia" or merely the last 4 words?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Yes, she most certainly doubted the last 4 words. (See her post #515.)

[Robert]

Yes, I know Ally was only questioning the last four words. I suppose it boils down to : how many Jews were admitted ro the relevant institution, at the relevant time, from a brother's house in Whitechapel?

And now someone is going to say "tons."

[mariab]

Well, I'm definitely looking forward to reading what Rob House has to say in his upcoming book.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I have explained before, I tried previously to get permission to publish the report on Casebook, but the copyright holders (the Forensic Science Service) said I should ask the permission of the person who commissioned the report (Alan McCormick) and that was not forthcoming. If it had been I should have posted the report here 18 months ago, but as it wasn't I didn't.

Well lets hope I am more successful