New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Chris]

Lechmere

Again, you've failed to produce a single reason for doubting the authenticity of these documents. (To say that in different circumstances there would have been other opportunities of authenticating them is very different from that.)

As you seem to be alone in your suspicions, maybe the best thing would be for you to pursue them directly with the parties concerned.

[Lechmere]

Chris
There is reason to doubt every new historical document that unveils new information.
That I am afraid is the nature of the beast.
Is 'Ripperology' exempt from this. I think not.
Or am I 'outvoted' and so the matter should rest?
However I don't think I am alone in being sceptical or in seeking research to be carried out in a scrupulous manner.

[Chris]

However I don't think I am alone in being sceptical or in seeking research to be carried out in a scrupulous manner.

You seem to be alone in being sceptical about the authenticity of these documents, which is not surprising as you haven't been able to give us a single reason to be sceptical!

As for scrupulous research, I think the article by Adam and Keith is a model of that, and the evidence they present should be ample to satisfy any reasonable doubts people may have had.

[Lechmere]

Chris
I do believe I have gone into some detail as to why these documents should be regarded with a degree of scepticism, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
The article which concerns this thread is a history of the Marginalia rather than an investigation into it's authenticity.

[Bridewell]

You seem to be alone in being sceptical about the authenticity of these documents,

Hi Chris,

I think that Trevor Marriott had some concerns as well.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris]

I do believe I have gone into some detail as to why these documents should be regarded with a degree of scepticism, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

I'm sorry, but it just won't wash.

You've said the marginalia are written in pencil. You've said the authors of some of these letters are dead. You've said there is no record of how the News of the World article reached the Crime Museum. You've said that some of the material has only just emerged. You've said that one document has gone missing. You've said that Dr Davies used material supplied by the family for comparison.

None of that indicates these documents are fakes, and it's no good pretending it does.

[Chris]

I think that Trevor Marriott had some concerns as well.

Certainly he did in the past. After the article was published he said he was going to digest it and comment further in due course.

And obviously a number of other people had doubts in the past about the marginalia. But I don't think anyone else continued to express doubts after the article by Adam and Keith was published, did they?

[Lechmere]

Chris
I didn't say they were faked - I said that proper verification is not possible and that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that it could have been avoided.
I also said that for any new historical document to be taken seriously, then it should be open to scrupulous testing.
Scrupulous testing has not taken place.

[Chris]

I didn't say they were faked - I said that proper verification is not possible and that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that it could have been avoided.

We're talking about your claim that there are grounds for scepticism about their authenticity. That means grounds for believing they may be fakes, doesn't it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Having now read Adam and Keith's Rip article a number of times I can find no fault with the chain of events and NOTW documentation, so cannot imagine what Lechmere is suggesting. As to paper sizes, during my time at the Press Association we used B4 stationery in single-sheets and multi-copy carbon-sets. Longer and wider than A4, it also had a height-to-width ratio of approximately 1.4 which, happily, corresponds with the Sandell examples in Rip 128.

I am also completely copacetic [a glorious American word] with those sections of the Page 138 marginalia written in purplish pencil.

However, I still harbour niggling suspicions about the Page 138 and endpaper marginalia written in darker coloured pencil.

I cannot fully explain the reason for these suspicions. My better nature tells me to ignore them, but still they refuse to away.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Chris
If you think grounds for scepticism is the same as grounds for thinking them fake, then take everything I have said about grounds for scepticism in the various posts on this thread (i have gone onto some detail) and you can regard them as grounds for thinking them fake.

[John Bennett]

Lechmere, if you feel there is grounds for scepticism regarding these documents/letters, then could you explain what you are sceptical about?

I'm confused!


JB

[Chris]

If you think grounds for scepticism is the same as grounds for thinking them fake ...

I don't. What I'm saying is that you haven't shown any grounds for scepticism - for thinking they may be fakes.

[Phil H]

Quite honestly, I can think of few historical documents that have the provenance or the demonstrated authenticity of the marginalia. Any reasonable historian - reasonable scepticism aside -should be able to accept and work with this as a source.

The handwriting has been twice authenticated, the second time on the basis of new samples and a deeper knowledge of DSS's habits. The marginalia clearly mirror other annotations in other books owned by DSS - he was in the habit of expanding on things in books where he had personal knowledge.

To me the contextual element and the contents of the marginalia are further evidence that this is the work of a man who knew what he was talking about at first hand - the reference to the Seaside Home without elaboration; the references to the suspect, which do not contradict anything research has thrown up about the most likely candidate, Aaron Kosminski - speak for themselves.

It is for those who question this source in any way to state clearly and without obfuscation why they do so. That is what they would have to do in serious academic debate, and that is surely what we are engaged in here.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Two important documents relating to the Whitechapel Murders originate from what might be termed the Swanson Collection: the Marginalia ;and the note from Warren relating to Swanson’s role in the investigation.

In the light of the ‘Ripperologist’ article about the history of the Marginalia I have questioned whether doubts about whether or not the Marginalia is genuine have been laid to rest.

Merely raising this question which in my opinion should be answered, has already attracted some strong criticism. When new documents which alter our understanding of historical events are unearthed then they should be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt their bona fides.

On refection it is my opinion the items in the Swanson Collection fall far below this test. Accordingly in my opinion judgement of their status should be reserved pending further evaluation, testing and research.

All documents in the Swanson Collection should be scrutinised as if any one of them is false, then it brings into doubt the authenticity of all of them. This is because to a very large extent the different documents in this collection corroborate each other and there is very little else available to provide such corroberation.

The Marginalia was authenticated on the basis of analysis of the handwriting by Christopher Davies. His first report was in 2006, in which he stated:
‘...my findings do not show unequivocally that Swanson is the writer of the questioned writing but they do support this proposition.’
and
‘If I were able to examine known writings by Swanson that were more nearly contemporary with the questioned writing then I might wish to alter this conclusion’.
In 2012, following the discovery of further examples of DS Swanson’s writing, Mr Davies conducted a further report that was more positive about the Marginalia’s legitimacy. I will return to these items shortly.

First I will deal with the News of the World items that Simon Wood could see no fault in.
On face value there is indeed no fault.
They provide a time line.
The death of DS Swanson’s daughter in 1980 leads to the discovery of the Marginalia and the distribution of DS Swanson’s surviving archive amongst his descendents.
In 1981 the Marginalia was offered for publication to the News of the World. There is a quantity of correspondence between Jim Swanson (a grandson of DS Swanson) and two people who worked for the News of the World, Charles Sandell and Robert Warren.
Charles Sandell died in 1987.
Robert Warren died in 2009.
The News of the World ceased publication in July 2011.
These items seem to have surfaced only in 2012.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, the News of the World items have all come from the Swanson family. Independent corroboration that these items came from the News of the World has not been obtained.

These documents tend to validate the Maginalia as they show that a major newspaper was prepared to pay a reasonably large sum to publish the contents. They also show that the Marginalia was known about soon after the death of DS Swanson’s daughter and provide extra texture and padding to the overall story.

One further News of the World item relating to the Marginalia exists. This is the ‘Jack’ draft article which would have been written in 1981 but which was only discovered at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in 2011. The ‘Ripperologist’ article concludes that the authors are trying to establish how this item came to be there as there is no obvious explanation for this. In the absence of an obvious explanation the appearance of this document asks more questions than it answers. Until a satisfactory explanation can be made for the appearance of this document in the Scotland Yard Museum, or unless independent verification from the News of the World or its successor can be obtained establishing it’s authenticity, then this item should be regarded as being dubious.

The appearance of the News of the World items at this juncture could be regarded as suspicious, but there may be a perfectly reasonable answer to this. Establishing the bona fides of the News of the World items will be very difficult at this remove. Maybe an enquiry with the News of the World or the surviving relatives of the deceased journalists would soon show these documents to be genuine. However until such a verification has been done. in my opinion scepticism is the order of the day. Just as people would be more sceptical about the Marginalia had not Mr Davies’s analysis not been carried out.

The purpose of the examination by Christopher Davies was to establish whether the Marginalia is genuine. As the Marginalia was written in pencil it is only possible to do this on the basis of the style of the handwriting. Chemical analysis is not possible. Hence Mr Davies, even in his second, more positive report, is not totally unequivocal in attributing the writing all to DS Swanson.
Accordingly any documents that tend to support the Marginalia – from the same source (i.e. the Swanson family) – should be treated and examined carefully.
No such examination has taken place with respect to any of the supporting documents – e.g. the pencil written letters.

The first report by Mr Davies suggested that the change in the pencil annotations in the Marginalia ‘show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism.’

One of the most common early features of Parkinson’s Disease is shaking.
However it is known that in his old age Swanson was able to threat fishing line into hooks and the pictures of him in his later years do not show someone typically suffering from Parkinson’s Disease which commonly causes a hunching of the upper body.
Another symptom of Parkinson’s disease is poor memory and cognitive ability. This could perhaps explain the strange references in the Marginalia – such as the Seaside Home identification and the odd claim that this ‘identification’ could have been ‘the means of murderer being hanged’.
An alternative explanation for these strange references is that they (and the Kosminski naming) were not in fact made by DS Swanson.

A pencil written letter dated towards the end of DS Swanson’s life and an address book with later pencil written additions which was provided from the Swanson Collection to Mr Davies to revisit his 2006 report. In light of the Parkinson remark by Mr Davies, the pencil written letter helpfully states:
“I am sorry [for my rough] writing with pencil my hand shakes paralytically and causes me to stop.”
and
“I am sorry my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop.”

This pencil written letter is crucial in establishing the legitimacy of the Marginalia yet it comes from the same source as the Marginalia. Hence unless the age of the letter can be firmly established it can be of little use in establishing the legitimacy of the Marginalia. I am not aware of any tests being carried out on the letter.

We are told that the Marginalia came to light in 1981 and that its significance was instantly recognised. That a payment made by the News of the World for their abortive article was shared amongst the Swanson family, so the entire family was aware of the significance. But apparently at this time no one made a search for further DS Swanson items to see if anything else of interest was there waiting to be found – until now.

The other significant item to come from the DS Swanson collection is the note from Warren appointing Swanson as a species of superannuated clerk at Scotland Yard, through whose office everything related to the Whitechapel Murders should pass on its way in or way out.
It is routinely and entirely inaccurately claimed that this note appointed DS Swanson in operational control of the Ripper investigation.
For example in ‘The Man who hunted Jack the Ripper’ by Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans (I am only using this example as I am reading this otherwise excellent book now), it states:
‘Thus Warren designated one man, with his own office at the Yard, to take full control of the Whitechapel inquiry.’

Actually the note makes it explicit that DS Swanson was only allowed to take control of directing events in an emergency and that his function was to coordinate the incoming and outgoing information at Scotland Yard. However it is actually the ‘superanuated filing clerk’ role that would have provided DS Swanson with the potential to know that ‘Kosminski was the suspect’.
So the Warren document is important.
However this note, which was part of the Swanson Collection is now lost. It cannot be scrutinised to establish its authenticity. I am not aware of any tests being made to establish that it is authentic. Although some photographs of it (or at least I have seen one page of it reproduced in another book).
As there are so many unresolved issues relating to the other items from the Swanson Collection (including the News of the World item at the Scotland Yard Museum), then in my opinion until these matters are satisfactorily cleared up, and unless the Warren note can be produced and independently authenticated, it should be regarded as being of doubtful genuineness.

Until they are tested it is right and proper for a sceptical eyebrow to be raised at the late appearance of the various supporting documents, the letters address book and News of the World items. By extension, until this is done, there should be a big question mark over the Marginalia regarding its authenticity, or unless other examples of DS Swanson’s writing from that period can be obtained from another source.

I would suggest that it is in everyone’s interests for these issues to be clarified and sorted out as quickly as possible.