Is the marginalia genuine?

[The Grave Maurice]

Yep, I'm sure you both have put your finger on it. I work in a medium-sized university and our accounting people insist that every expenditure over a certain amount be properly authorised. Same goes for HR if employees are requesting leave, or sick time or whatnot. Much of this is now done electronically but, even so, I have to stick my initials on dozens of paper documents every week.

Recently, at work, I jotted down the author and title of a book that I want to get and, when I got home, I saw that I had initialled the note. Just force of habit. It must have been second nature to someone like Swanson to initial the things he wrote.

[Archaic]

Hi Steven, looks like our posts crossed. I agree with you.

I remember as a teenager finding my father's handwritten memo listing various chores he intended to do that weekend.

He actually wrote a heading for it in his careful engineer's block-letters : "John- Jobs To Be Done Around The House This Weekend".
I laughed myself silly when I read it and teased him about it for years.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

I'd describe them as "most likely genuine," but two things have always bothered me.
First, Swanson obviously intended his notes to be read by someone, else why initial the entries to insure they could properly be attributed to him? People don't normally sign or initial diary entries, for instance, or notes to themselves.

Hi John.

Public officials working within a large Victorian bureaucracy would be used to reading immense quantities of documents, making notations and comments, and then initialing them. Even in cases where written comments were not added, papers were typically initialed to show that they had been read.

I've seen numerous examples of this, including notes and initials contained within the pages of books belonging to an individual's private library. I'm not sure all personal notes always have an intended audience. I can see how it might simply have been an ingrained habit.

I often pen notes in the margins and endpapers of my own books. I seldom initial them, but then again I've never been a 19th C. public official.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: My Dad was an aerospace executive and program manager who had to read, comment upon, sign and initial all kinds of documents and reports on a daily basis. He frequently initialed the notes he made for his own personal use, even after he had retired and taken up family genealogy as a hobby. I come across his initialed notes all the time.

[Steven Russell]

I'd describe them as "most likely genuine," but two things have always bothered me. First, Swanson obviously intended his notes to be read by someone, else why initial the entries to insure they could properly be attributed to him? People don't normally sign or initial diary entries, for instance, or notes to themselves. Which begs the question, who was Swanson writing for? Who was his intended audience? And if he was hoping to add to the general knowledge of the subject, why hide the notes in the margins and blank pages of someone else's autobiography, presumably destined to gather dust among similar texts in a bookcase somewhere?

Curious John

People in jobs which involve record-keeping and the possibility that records might be kept and referred back to always initial their log entries. This is good practise and, I am sure, would have been insisted upon within the police service during DSS's service. Thus, he was used to the practice. It is also encouraged so that any log entries may easily be traced back to the author.

My view is that DSS initialled his notes out of habit and professional pride. In the unlikely event that anyone should discover them after his death, there was the signature to confirm authorship.

I would have thought, Dr. Watson, that during your career, you might have had occasion to initial documents. Other doctors do it all the time.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Dr. John Watson]

Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.

I'd describe them as "most likely genuine," but two things have always bothered me. First, Swanson obviously intended his notes to be read by someone, else why initial the entries to insure they could properly be attributed to him? People don't normally sign or initial diary entries, for instance, or notes to themselves. Which begs the question, who was Swanson writing for? Who was his intended audience? And if he was hoping to add to the general knowledge of the subject, why hide the notes in the margins and blank pages of someone else's autobiography, presumably destined to gather dust among similar texts in a bookcase somewhere?

Curious John

[Colin Roberts]

So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).

Hear ye!

Hear ye!

Henceforth, the record shall state that anyone that does not see the world, from precisely the same perspective as that of 'Phil H' is of 'closed mind'.

[Steven Russell]

Completely agree, Phil. But you can still believe that the notes are genuine and cling on to a pet theory. All you have to do is interpret the notes as Swanson merely expanding on Anderson's comments without fully endorsing them (not unreasonable), then decide Anderson is either lying or confused. Presto! The notes and your theory both emerge unscathed.

Rather disappointed at the number of votes cast so far compared to the number of views. Come on, Casebookers! All it takes is a click!

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil H]

I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine.

I assume they have to contend that it is a forgery/fake because if it were genuine it would rule out their pet theory.

So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).

I have seen NO evidence that would make me believe there was even a hint of forgery about the marginalia - quite the contrary as the material published in a recent thread illustrates.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.

Yes - I hadn't forgotten that suggestion, but I do think it is very unlikely, as are the "lucky guess" possibility, and the independent pre-Fido research possibility.

I suppose what I'm asking is on what basis people can say the marginalia are "most likely" to be either wholly or partly faked.

[Chris]

Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?

Because Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, said "I have in my possession authentic printed & written information that names the "suspect," states why he was not brought to justice, and what eventually happened to him." To my mind this means there can be no question of the endpaper annotations (or the final sentence naming Kosminski) having been added after 1981.

For more details of the correspondence, see this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5899

[Colin Roberts]

But in 1981 no one knew that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house, or that he had been sent to Colney Hatch. Are those meant to have been lucky guesses on the faker's part, or is he supposed to have secretly carried out his own ground-breaking Ripper research years before Fido's discoveries?

As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.

~~~

I tend to believe that the margin and end-paper notes were written by Swanson.

But, I am occasionally offended by the dogged insistence of some (exclusive of Chris) that the notes are of genuine provenance, simply because ... one says so; so much so, that in these instances, I am somewhat driven to assume the position that the notes are not of genuine provenance.

[Stephen Thomas]

My question still has to be how a pre-1981 faker could have known that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house and was sent to Colney Hatch. No one knew that before Martin Fido's discoveries in 1987, as far as I'm aware.

Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?

[Steven Russell]

I did wonder about whether to make the poll open or private and did consider that some potential voters might be put off by the fact that the voters' identities would be shown. I decided on an open poll, reasoning that those who voted would not mind having their views known and, conversely, anyone not wishing their views to be known could simply choose not to vote. Also, as has been noted, I qualified the question with "In my opinion" and "most likely".

I think I may have blundered with the name of the thread though since marginalia is plural isn't it?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Have a nice afternoon.

kindly

Phil