New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Lechmere,

Glad you found the article interesting and that it provided food for thought. I've answered some of your points below. You mention other, sceptical questions... Feel free to post them, I'll do my best to answer.

This is an interesting article that I have only just had time to read and digest properly.

I wonder what happened to the official documents that Swanson – certainly unofficially – kept?
Presuming if course they were in fact official documents. These being the victim list (in copperplate handwriting and embossed with the oval Metropolitan Police seal) and the memorandum from Anderson appointing Swanson as the Scotland Yard clearing house for all Ripper related correspondence.
Has anyone apart from the journalists at the News of the World and the Telegraph in the 1980s seen these documents?

Yes, see Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates. As I say in the article, the whereabouts of these two documents is presently unknown, but it is presumed in the family.

I find Jim Swanson’s unpublished letter to the Telegraph enthusiastically promoting Kosminski unequivocally as the culprit interesting.

I also find it interesting that an unrelated letter from Anderson to Swanson (that actually predated the publication of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’) was pasted inside the book.

Then we find that other books with similar annotations later turn up to corroborate the annotations in ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’.

The annotations in other books in Swanson's collection were made mostly before those in the Lighter Side, and don't corroborate them, they indicate that Swanson was in the habits of writing in his books.

There is a Forensic Science Service report dated 2006 that is not unequivocal in its authentication of the marginalia.
It compares the pencil written marginalia to ink handwriting samples (which do not seem to have been tested for age) that were provided from the same source as the annotated copy of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ – the Swanson family.

I find it interesting that Jim Swanson had annotated a copy of Paul Begg’s ‘Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts’.

The Swanson’s were paid Ģ750 (down from Ģ1,000) in 1981 by the News of the World for their abortive (Yorkshire Ripper coinciding) story. Did the Telegraph pay for the 1988 (centenary) story?

Footnote 43 of the article, detailing an email from Telegraph journalist Charles Nevin to myself, confirms that it was the Telegraph's policy not to pay for stories. And incidentally, they published in 1987, not the centenary year.

The depositing of the annotated ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ at the Scotland Yard Black Museum and its featuring in the documentary ‘Jack the Ripper: the Definitive Story’ obviously have greatly added to the provenance of this document.

The provenance of the Marginalia wasn't enhanced in any way by the book being loaned to the Crime Museum.

I am also interested to see that a new letter from Donald Swanson recently turned up. It was written in both normal pencil and with a purple pencil - just like the marginalia! The text included apologies for both being written in pencil (rather than with a pen, which might be expected in a letter) and the shaky handwriting. It will be noted that the above mentioned Forensic Science Service report speculated that differences in the marginalia writing with other samples might be accounted for by shaky handwriting occasioned by old age. This might be termed useful corroboration for the marginalia’s authenticity.

This year the newly discovered letter (and a couple of other newly discovered letters) were compared by the same person who conducted the 2006 Forensic Science Service report and he found that the handwriting in the newly discovered letters more closely matched that found in the marginalia.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the 'new' letters were discovered by current owner of the Marginalia Nevill Swanson while collating materials from all sides of the family in preparation for the sale of the collection. As these 'new' letters were written to a different side of the family, Jim Swanson was unaware of them.

How has the sale of the Swanson memorabilia gone – which includes the annotated copy of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ (retrieved from the Scotland Yard Museum)?
Apparently the Swanson family felt the items would be better held in the hands of a private enthusiast than in a seldom visited Scotland Yard Museum.
I see that the much attacked Patricia Cornwell was considering buying the items... and loaning them back to the Scotland Yard Museum.

I am afraid that I am reminded of Hugh Trevor Roper. I am tempted to wonder if another lot will appear from somewhere, including a pencil written note on a page torn from an authentic Victorian notebook, stamped with a Metropolitan Police seal, containing extra details on Kosminski!

No decision on the sale has been made, and the Swanson family are in no rush to sell. As Nevill Swanson is still going through documents sent by his relatives, there might well be another surprise or two. I think it's sad that when we should be actively seeking more written evidence, the possibly of this happening is viewed with suspicion.

Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked. It is too easy to get too close to a subject and lose one’s objectivity.

You said it!

Best wishes
Adam

[Lechmere]

Phil H
I'm not sure which honourable man you think I am defaming. And with whom am I sowing discord?
I don't think the maginalia have been declared 'authentic' by anyone. A specialist compared them to some other documents and said the writing was similar - which isn't quite the same thing.

[Monty]

" It is too easy to get too close to a subject and lose one’s objectivity."

Oh the irony.

Monty

[Phil H]

Lechmere:
I'm not sure which honourable man you think I am defaming.

I said, specifically, Swanson? Are you suggesting he was NOT honourable? That he did not have integrity? I'd like to read your reasons if so.

And with whom am I sowing discord?

You are, for your own reasons seeking to marginalise the marginalia by suggesting that they are unreliable, inauthentic. That doesn't surprise me. it should warn others to beware your approach and theories.

I don't think the maginalia have been declared 'authentic' by anyone.

The latest article is pretty strong confirmation that experts believe Swanson wrote the annotations.

A specialist compared them to some other documents and said the writing was similar - which isn't quite the same thing.

Well, given your fast and loose approach to history, scholarship and methodology, I can understand why you'd say that. But isn't a "specialist" giving an expert opinion, based on comparisons, the way that paintings, manuscripts and other such historical material are always authenticated? The provenance of the marginalia is also beyond question. So what's your gripe - or do you just not get (or want to get) it?

If there is one thing that really infuriates me it is those who (for their own questionable purposes) casually but deliberately denigrate men who did their duty and upheld high standards in the past.

Phil H

[PaulB]

Has anyone apart from the journalists at the News of the World and the Telegraph in the 1980s seen these documents?

Yes.

Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked. It is too easy to get too close to a subject and lose one’s objectivity.

Why do you suppose that sceptical questions haven't been asked. And asked. And asked again?

[Chris]

Why do you suppose that sceptical questions haven't been asked. And asked. And asked again?

And answered.

[John Bennett]

Surely the mystery surrounding the marginalia is no longer ‘were the notes written (in full or in part) by DSS. The evidence points favourably in the direction that he most certainly did.

The mystery is ‘who is this Polish Jew suspect?’ Is he ‘Kosminski’ as mentioned by DSS and Macnaghten and strongly alluded to by Anderson and if so, is he Aaron Kosminski – or even somebody else? And what are the true events at the Seaside home? In other words, what happened, when and where, and who it happened to.

I feel that any attempts to knock the authenticity of the marginalia has now become a bit of a waste of time, when what is important is finding those threads that tie a ‘Kosminski’ (or any other suspect named by contemporary officers) to actually being the murderer. There may be information and missing documents somewhere that can put this dilemma to rest once and for all, one way or the other.

JB

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"Why do you suppose that sceptical questions haven't been asked. And asked. And asked again?"

With respect, nobody has stated that those questions have not been asked. "in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked" was what was stated, and that is not the same as claiming that such questions have not been asked before, is it? It is more of a pointing out that it is urgent not to seize answering questions as long as something has not been established beyond all doubts.

John Bennett, a very wise and balanced man, writes "I feel that any attempts to knock the authenticity of the marginalia has now become a bit of a waste of time", and that is fair - if he feels that the authenticity has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, then that is how he should reason.
The problem is that we cannot make other peopleīs minds up for them, and so, if anybody believes that there IS still doubt, grounding the doubts in sound enough thinking, then we must acknowledge that the need to ask questions is there.

John writes that "The evidence points favourably in the direction that he most certainly did", when giving his opinion on how he interprets the research into whether Swanson was the writer of the marginalia or not. So, Swanson not only probably did make the annotations, he "most certainly" probably did. And fine - maybe we have reached a stage where it should be recognized that Swanson most certainly probably wrote the marginalia. But that is not the same as saying that he most certainly wrote it. It is not even the same as saying that he certainly wrote it. It is, in fact, not even the same as saying that he wrote it.

Ripperlogists are hard to convince as a community. And hardcore proof is hard to come by. There will always be doubts. And chances are that these doubts will serve to help solving the riddle in the end, although they may sometimes resemble annoying flies, buzzing around and disturbing the concentration of the renowned Ripperologist. Noli turbare circulum meum, eh?

Now, did I say something - anything? - about how I feel about the authenticity of the Swanson marginalia myself in this post? I did not. I speak generally only, since I am not sufficiently read up on the matter. I have, for example, not read the Ripperologist article as yet. But I donīt need to, in order to make the distinctions I make.

In the end, there is no imminent danger for anybody involved. Those who think it useless to question, wonīt do so. And those who think it potentially useful will keep the challenge raised. Where I will end up in all of this, I canīt say. I have a suspect of my own that must be dropped if Andersonīs and Swansonīs allegations hold water all the way.

I donīt think it does, however, as things stand. Not at all, in fact. I think Anderson was pooh-poohed at an early stage, and could do nothing about it. I think it was agreed on by sensible men that Kosminski was a useful suspect, but I very much fear that this conclusion was reached on all the wrong grounds and no conclusive, caserelated evidence at all. He would have been another Ostrog, if my hunch is right; the right type of suspect, answering to a description of the killer that was formed before the killer was caught. And thatīs doing things the wrong way around.

In that context, the marginalia may be right or wrong; it matters little. And I therefore would not mind to go along with John Bennett when he says that "what is important is finding those threads that tie a ‘Kosminski’ (or any other suspect named by contemporary officers) to actually being the murderer. There may be information and missing documents somewhere that can put this dilemma to rest once and for all, one way or the other." I think we may let the question of the veracity lie, instead trying to look for exactly these things. Once they surface, we will get a better and fuller understanding of the marginalia and itīs worth.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Macnaghten also mentions Kosminski so whether the marginalia is authentic or not, Kosminski should be looked at closely.

Phil there are lots if Swansons - which one have I defamed? I am not sure.

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily.
The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

A close reading of the forensic reports indicates that it was checking documents that emanated from the same source against each other - essentially anyway.

In the meantime I will dig out my scotland yard book to see what it says.

[Phil H]

Lechmere, I will in future treat your posts with the attention they deserve - by ignoring them. Unless you start to state things that are not true when I reserve the right to stand up for historical standards..

Phil there are lots if Swansons - which one have I defamed? I am not sure.

You know precisely which Swanson I referred to. remarks like that just indicate what a time-waster you are, and how little you are prepared to stand behind the remarks you make. Not that I am surprised.

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily.

So does it follow that you would only have been happy to accept the material returned 9anaonymously) to SY around 1988 if ALL the missing files had been returned. We deal with what we have.

the Swanson family are not "Rippologists" and have no need to be. Nor do they have to allow access to family papers to outsiders. They owe no responsibility to us at all.

The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

Only to those like you - or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott - who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material.

A close reading of the forensic reports indicates that it was checking documents that emanated from the same source against each other - essentially anyway.

I don't see how you could check a man's handwriting against someone else's, do you? You have to use the same source. Art galleries check paintings claimed to be by a particular artist against others in their collection and those of other institutions.

Or are you suggesting forgery? That all the DSS manuscript material owned by the family was by the same hand, but not authentic? THAT is the clear implication of your comment.

In the meantime I will dig out my scotland yard book to see what it says.

About what?

Phil H

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"Why do you suppose that sceptical questions haven't been asked. And asked. And asked again?"

With respect, nobody has stated that those questions have not been asked. "in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked" was what was stated, and that is not the same as claiming that such questions have not been asked before, is it? It is more of a pointing out that it is urgent not to seize answering questions as long as something has not been established beyond all doubts.

With respect, there is that small preface to what Lechmere wrote which you have omitted and which I have italicised: "Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked." The implication is that asking sceptical questions "will not be popular"; well, with whom? Sceptical questions have been asked endlessly since the marginalia first came to public light. To suggest that asking sceptical questions won't be popular, as if there is some body of people opposed to the asking of such questions, is a nonsense. It is equally a nonsense for someone to suppose that those sceptical questions haven't already been asked - and, as Chris says, answered - many times. I really don't mind people being sceptical and expressing their scepticism. It is only right and proper that they do. But this idea that expressing scepticism will be unpopular in certain unspecified quarters is about as silly as it gets.

[PaulB]

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily. The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

Whilst what you describe as the drip feed of documents does indeed generate sensible scepticism, the fact is that it wasn't until Nevil Swanson began to contact family members with a view to putting together all the surviving DSS material for auction that some of these documents came to light and/or that their significance was realised. There is therefore a good reason why this material has been drip fed, as it were. Now, there is a difference between healthy skepticism and creating doubts where none exist.

[robhouse]

There may be information and missing documents somewhere that can put this dilemma to rest once and for all, one way or the other.

Yeah, I hope so. We shall see.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"With respect, there is that small preface to what Lechmere wrote which you have omitted and which I have italicised: "Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked." The implication is that asking sceptical questions "will not be popular"; well, with whom?"

Hmm. I did not read it that way at all. I think that "these thoughts" refer to the specific thoughts Lechmere expressed on matters relating to the Swanson marginalia, and not to a generalized scepticism as such - he knows very well that others have been sceptical, historically, I should think.

"Sceptical questions have been asked endlessly since the marginalia first came to public light."

Yes, I am aware of that! And a good thing too, I would say, since scepticism is a very useful tool. And I am not confusing it with implicating foul play with no substantiation, since that is not scepticism at all - that is slander. So letīs keep the two apart!

"To suggest that asking sceptical questions won't be popular, as if there is some body of people opposed to the asking of such questions, is a nonsense."

I really canīt say how true or untrue this is - but I CAN say that I donīt think, as I just stated, that the wording should be regarded as a rough generalization, but instead something that relates to the particular details Lechmere wrote about in relation to the marginalia.
But of course, to make totally sure what he meant, you must ask him. I am only trying to show you what made me make my comment.

"It is equally a nonsense for someone to suppose that those sceptical questions haven't already been asked - and, as Chris says, answered - many times."

Mmm. And as you will appreciate, I donīt think that was what Lechmere was doing. He would - as stated before - be quite well aware of the efforts made on behalf of both sides in the conflict.

"I really don't mind people being sceptical and expressing their scepticism. It is only right and proper that they do."

Exactly.

"But this idea that expressing scepticism will be unpopular in certain unspecified quarters is about as silly as it gets."

Not really. It can get a lot sillier. But I see what you mean, of course, and generally speaking I donīt disagree. That is not to say that one can never make a good guess in advance about who will agree with your posts and who will criticize them. But that is another thing - itīs as it should be. And fair and useful criticism is a much called for commodity, a good thing, whereas "popularity" is an awkward thing. I have often had it pointed out to me that some of my views are impopular in the sense that people do not agree with me, and I am not very fond of anybody who believes that such a thing is a pointer towards or away from veracity.

I know Edward (Lechmere) rather well, and I donīt think that you need to worry that he is unable to make the self same distinction. On the contrary.

Hope Iīve managed to clarify my own stance, at any rate!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I rather think that my point about the unpopularity of raising sceptical questions has been shown to be totally accurate by the shrill, aggresive and vitriolic responses from some quarters that my questions raised on this very thread.
Of course as a field for sensible research this is one of the things that brings 'Ripperology' into contempt with the wider historical research community.

In any event I was not aware that the points I raised had been raised before. Not that I scrutinise every thread on this or other forums. Nor have I been privy to the private conversations of those more intimately involved with the Swanson family.

There are many reasons why faked documents are produced. It is not uncommon. If any such actions have taken place here - and I have not said they have, i have merely raised a number of issues (which clearly have made some people uncomfortable), then I have no idea who would be responsible. At the moment anyway. Suggesting someone in particular is responsible is somewhat putting the cart before the horse as I have no idea whether there was anything for anyone to be responsible for - I am merely raising questions.
Hence I am at a loss to know who Phil thinks I am accusing - I can only guess that he is still stuck in a mental war with someone else (Trevor Mariott by tge sounds if it) and is dragging me into his private conflict.