There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[The Good Michael]

Well now you have solved that one why not have a go at the ripper ?

Well, I've got it narrowed down to someone who lived in the East End. No names yet.

Mike

[robhouse]

Hi Ally,

I actually wrote a response before, but the thread got closed before I could hit the send button.

I do not have any objection to people asking questions pertaining to the authenticity of the document. That particular question you posted seemed rather pointless to me. I think the answer is fairly obvious and it is just an example of trying to corner Nevill and say "HA! Gotcha!"

I do not have any problem with people questioning the marginalia's authenticity. However, in my opinion, there is practically nothing that supports the contention that the document is in any way faked. I repeat, nothing. And therefore I think the repeated suggestions that there are "grave" concerns and the document is "questionable" are really a bit silly.

This is one of the reasons why I posted this thing (again) on the color of the pencils. Because several people (including yourself I believe) have posted incorrect information about that topic. Specifically, the statement that there is one color pencil used on pg 138, and another color used on the endnotes. You yourself stated this recently I believe. That leads me to question whether your use of this incorrect piece of information is central to your objections re: the marginalia's authenticity. If it is, then I don't understand it. If it is not, then I wonder what your other objections are, since you made a point of bringing that up specifically.

It is also not correct to call the results of the Davies report "inconclusive" as Trevor insists on doing. As Chris Phillips pointed out, Davies rated the document a 7 out of 9, meaning that he strongly believed the document was genuine, and written by Swanson. Incidentally, 9 means "absolute certainty" as far as I can tell, and 8 means "very strong support for the document being authentic." Rating his conclusion 9 would be out of the question in all likelihood, as there was no abslute proof that Swanson wrote the document (like photographic evidence with Swanson, pencil to paper for example.) The main reasons he stated that he could not be more certain (rating of 8 for example), from what I understand, are that the comparison handwriting sample he used a) was written in ink, and b) was written in the late 1870s or early 1880 (ie, at minimum, about 30 years before the marginalia). So I do not call his results, given the circumstances, to be inconclusive at all.

And to me, those are the sum total of the objections, apart from some vague suggestions that the grammar used in the phrase "Kosminski was the suspect" is a bit odd. I agree, it is a bit odd. It is odd grammatically, and it seems a bit tacked on. This one part has been singled out, and it has been suggested it was added on by someone else, simply because it seems odd grammatically, or because there are dashes around it. However, there are other examples of odd grammar in the same document. For example:

"after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. " -- this is not even a valid sentence grammatically speaking. Indeed, "and he knew he was identified" seems a bit tacked on at the end, doesn't it?

"In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse ..." this is also a bit odd grammatically.

So again, in summary, I would not have any objection to people raising questions about the authenticity of the document. I just think that the objections raised so far have been pretty weak. If there are more examples of things that you think support the idea that the document is faked, I would be happy to discuss them.

RH

[Ally]

I do not have any objection to people asking questions pertaining to the authenticity of the document. That particular question you posted seemed rather pointless to me. I think the answer is fairly obvious and it is just an example of trying to corner Nevill and say "HA! Gotcha!"

The answer is rather obvious isn't it? Which of course makes me wonder why emphasis was put on it in the first place. Why tell such an obvious lie? There is of course no way to tell what occurred with the book, prior to 87, so what was the point of making such a point? Why shore up a supposedly "impeccable" provenance with such a blatantly ridiculous statement (realizing of course, it was not directly Nevill who did so) but why did Jim feel the need to support the provenance in such a way?

This is one of the reasons why I posted this thing (again) on the color of the pencils. Because several people (including yourself I believe) have posted incorrect information about that topic. Specifically, the statement that there is one color pencil used on pg 138, and another color used on the endnotes. You yourself stated this recently I believe.

Really? Where precisely did I say this recently? You do realize that arguments grow and evolve and that when new information comes to light, old information becomes irrelevant. I am aware that the purple pencil also appears on p. 138. I have been aware for a while, ever since the photos appeared on this thread. At that time, my interest shifted more to the arena that is when the purple pencil is used that the DSS initials come up, and my wondering "Who initials their own marginalia?" For what purpose? Where are there other incidents of him initialing the marginalia, are there any, and if not, why do the initials only appear when there's purple?

I do not have any set idea as to what might be forgery, what might be real or whether there is any forgery. There are several possible scenarios if it was forged. I am not limited to one, I am capable of trying out different ideas in my head at once. I do not hold a firm opinion so I question different aspects and different scenarios as they occur to me. It is possible that the only forgery is "Kosminski was the suspect." It is also possible that all of the purple pencil was a forgery and it is possible that the entire thing is real. But with all the roadblocks being put up to asking any questions, I guess we'll just have to keep wondering.

It is also not correct to call the results of the Davies report "inconclusive" as Trevor insists on doing. As Chris Phillips pointed out, Davies rated the document a 7 out of 9, meaning that he strongly believed the document was genuine, and written by Swanson.

It is also not correct to state that a handwriting analysis means squat. Handwriting analysis is at best pseudoscience and at worse educated guessing. There is no scientific principle behind handwriting analysis. It is not a science. It has absolutely no provable value. I frankly don't care if there is another handwriting analysis done and I don't really care about the Davies report (other than I wish it would just be out there so people can quit harping on it). There is no degree in handwriting analysis by any reputable scientific institute (although i am sure you can find an "accredited course" from Woo Woo U). Hitler diaries, anyone?

Somewhere on this thread while we were all looking at the handwriting, someone made a sarcastic comment about "the amateur handwriting analysts thinking they knew as much as the professionals". Yeah, because those PhDs in handwriting analysis are really, really hard to come by.

So again, in summary, I would not have any objection to people raising questions about the authenticity of the document. I just think that the objections raised so far have been pretty weak. If there are more examples of things that you think support the idea that the document is faked, I would be happy to discuss them.

But again, you aren't the one who needs to be discussing them. The questions need to be put to someone who can provide answers, all the answers, to all the questions. That would be Nevill. And I guess until someone actually asks him all the questions, the questions will never be resolved.

And the questions will never be asked because the people who currently have access to Mr. Swanson appear more concerned with getting cut off from future offerings than asking questions about the ones we already have.

[Chris]

The answer is rather obvious isn't it? Which of course makes me wonder why emphasis was put on it in the first place. Why tell such an obvious lie? There is of course no way to tell what occurred with the book, prior to 87, so what was the point of making such a point? Why shore up a supposedly "impeccable" provenance with such a blatantly ridiculous statement (realizing of course, it was not directly Nevill who did so) but why did Jim feel the need to support the provenance in such a way?

If you're accusing someone of lying, please can you quote the statement you're referring to? In fact I'm not even clear who your accusation is directed at.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you're accusing someone of lying, please can you quote the statement you're referring to? In fact I'm not even clear who your accusation is directed at.

Chris
I see you are up to your tricks again trying the old slander entrapment routine just so you can go to Admin and try to get posters banned for allegedly commmitting slander against someone.

I can see right through it i hope other members on her can also.

[Monty]

Chris
I see you are up to your tricks again trying the old slander entrapment routine just so you can go to Admin and try to get posters banned for allegedly commmitting slander against someone.

I can see right through it i hope other members on her can also.

So, let me get this straight Trevor,

In your world, where organs are stolen from bodies in mortuaries and women use their aprons as sanitary towels, its ok to accuse as long as you dont name names?

Morals.

Monty


PS Before anyone twists my words, its nothing to do woth Ally

[Trevor Marriott]

So, let me get this straight Trevor,

In your world, where organs are stolen from bodies in mortuaries and women use their aprons as sanitary towels, its ok to accuse as long as you dont name names?

Morals.

Monty


PS Before anyone twists my words, its nothing to do woth Ally

Well its for sure they werent taking from the bodies at the scenes of the crimes !

And I should remind you it was an apron piece perhaps you would remind me where it is written that she was actually wearing an apron

[mariab]

Thank you for the animation, Mr House. For me it was definitely helpful, as I was one of the people who got misled (by other posters) into believing that there was one color pencil used on p. 138, and another color pencil used on the endpaper. I wouldn't have minded seing the endpaper once again, though, besides p. 138. If I recall it correctly, the endpaper notes are all in the purple colored pencil?

The main reasons he {Davies} stated that he could not be more certain (rating of 8 for example), from what I understand, are that the comparison handwriting sample he used a) was written in ink, and b) was written in the late 1870s or early 1880 (ie, at minimum, about 30 years before the marginalia). So I do not call his results, given the circumstances, to be inconclusive at all.

That's how I recall it too. In the meantime (as I've already pointed twice, earlier in this thread), SPE has acquired Swanson samples contemporary to the marginalia, and has posted them much earlier in this thread.

Ally wrote:
It is also possible that all of the purple pencil was a forgery
How can that be, since the purple pencil writing occurred PREVIOUSLY to the greenish-black pencil???

We musicologists have been dealing with indentifying the Mozart/Beethoven/Rossini autographs (as well as the numerous librettists' hands, and their minor collaborators) for over a century now, without needing to indulge in superfluous debate going in circles, questioning the authenticity of the sources when there are no valid grounds for such a claim. It's worked so nicely for Mozart and Beethoven, that I have to confess I'm impressed by the drama-rama surrounding Swanson.
As for the “Hitler diaries“, the doubts emerged immediately, and a press conference held to launch publication on 25 April 1983 was a full fiasco and great embarrassment for Stern. In fact, it's not that easy to forge a document and get it accepted in a community of specialists. (But I'm stressing the word “specialists“, not “conspiracy theorists“, here.)

[Ally]

Back when the marginalia was first being discussed, the provenance was described as having passed from DSS to his daughter, and upon her demise to her nephew. It was claimed at the time that the provenance was impeccable, and that Jim Swanson said he was sure the aunt had never even opened the book.

My question is, on what basis was this claim made? There is absolutely no way to be sure, fairly certain, pretty sure, relatively assured or to honestly claim anything other than "I have no idea" of what one person did with a book in 60 odd years.

This is needless support for a document that had such an impeccable provenance.

[Chris]

In your world, where organs are stolen from bodies in mortuaries and women use their aprons as sanitary towels, its ok to accuse as long as you dont name names?

Well, it's fairly obvious that Trevor Marriott believes that, because he spends so much of his time doing precisely that. But I don't think Ally does, which is why I asked her to clarify what she meant.

[Ally]

Ally wrote:
It is also possible that all of the purple pencil was a forgery
How can that be, since the purple pencil writing occurred PREVIOUSLY to the greenish-black pencil???

There is absolutely no way, whatsoever of determining, when either of the writings took place. You cannot claim that one set of writings happened prior to the other.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

How do you know when the greenish black pencil was used vis a vis the purple one? I didnt think that was known?

best wishes

Phil

PS.. apologies to Ally who beat me to it, posts crossed

[Trevor Marriott]

There is absolutely no way, whatsoever of determining, when either of the writings took place. You cannot claim that one set of writings happened prior to the other.

Ally
Is nice to see someone else on here talking sense besides me there are a lot that arent.

[mariab]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally
There is absolutely no way, whatsoever of determining, when either of the writings took place. You cannot claim that one set of writings happened prior to the other.

Of course you can, Ally and Phil. The purple pencil text is UNDERLINED by the black/green pencil, so it's obvious that the purple part came first. Not to mention the content of the text, or the way the page's blank spaces have been used.
I've been working with text and libretto sketches for over a decade, and there's a common logic and method in how people use blank spaces of a page to insert additions. For general additions (vs. corrections pertaining to a specific part of the text), normally people start with the blank part of the page, under the text, before moving over to the margins.

[Chris]

Back when the marginalia was first being discussed, the provenance was described as having passed from DSS to his daughter, and upon her demise to her nephew. It was claimed at the time that the provenance was impeccable, and that Jim Swanson said he was sure the aunt had never even opened the book.
My question is, on what basis was this claim made? There is absolutely no way to be sure, fairly certain, pretty sure, relatively assured or to honestly claim anything other than "I have no idea" of what one person did with a book in 60 odd years.

So it was not only "not directly Nevill" you were talking about, but not Nevill at all. And there's no particular reason Nevill would be in a position to answer a question about that, rather than - for example - any of the Ripperologists who discussed it with Jim Swanson.

Regarding the claim, I've just found in my notes a statement Martin Fido posted on the boards on 16 January 2006, to the effect that "Mr Swanson was pretty sure his aunt had never even opened the book." But of course those aren't Jim Swanson's exact words, and I think Martin Fido was recalling events of nearly 20 years earlier. I wouldn't like to accuse anyone of telling "an obvious lie" on evidence like that.