New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[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 people´s 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 don´t 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, won´t do so. And those who think it potentially useful will keep the challenge raised. Where I will end up in all of this, I can´t say. I have a suspect of my own that must be dropped if Anderson´s and Swanson´s allegations hold water all the way.

I don´t 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 that´s 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 it´s worth.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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

[Chris]

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

And answered.

[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?

[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

[Monty]

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

Oh the irony.

Monty

[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.

[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 £750 (down from £1,000) 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

[Phil H]

Lechmere - why must you continue to defame an honourable man - Swanson?

The marginalia have, so far as I can see, been declared authentic by any reputable historical standard. Yet you continue to promote discord and doubt for your own questionable ends.

Phil H

[Lechmere]

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?

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’.

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 £750 (down from £1,000) in 1981 by the News of the World for their abortive (Yorkshire Ripper coinciding) story. Did the Telegraph pay for the 1988 (centenary) story?

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.

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.

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!

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.

[Phil H]

What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.

When did they not?

Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

The code of behaviour I, and Anderson, referred to, had to do with not telling tales out of school. Full stop.

Phil H

[robhouse]

What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

Who ever suggested that this happened?

RH

[Phil Carter]

The Whitechapel murders were capital crimes. What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

Hello Harry,

This is a very very good posting. I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[harry]

Phil H,
It may be as you say,that certain codes,in certain professions,dictate the behaviour of it's members,not disagreeing.However the police, and law enforcement agencies in general,work in the main under laws enacted by parliament,and rules and interpretations made by judges.The powers of officers are that part of law and rules,which details how an officer should apply those laws and rules.There are, in addition,departmental directives,that sometimes seem to conflict with law.An instance is a directive that was made in the department I was a member of.It was to the effect that no action be taken against certain persons in the possession of pornography,when that possession was unlawful.The whitechapel murders were capital crimes.What I refuse to accept is that any officer,or group of officeres,acting singly or in conjunction with others,would fail to apply the law,in a situation that clearly showed a person to be guilty of the crimes.Yet this is what we are expected to believe,and some seem to believe that there was some sort of code of behaviour which allowed them to do so.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

The highlighted line is excellent, imho. Interpretation is a key point. We can discuss the merits and strengths of interpretation ad nauseum.

The fact is that most of history is interpretation, Phil. We know that things happened, in most cases we know the broad details of how they happened, but very often when we get into the detail we have to piece what happened together from a variety of disparate sources, each source carefully considered, each statement weighed and balanced, everything pieced together like a jig-saw.

The Swanson marginalia is no different

We have to ask questions of the marginalia, such as: is it likely that Swanson would have been a witness to or otherwise closely associated with what he is describing. The answer to that has to be 'yes'. Swanson had had overall charge of the investigation, he had remained involved in the investigation throughout, he was probably the best informed senior investigating officer. It's likely, therefore, that he would have been involved in one way or another. And, of course, we'd then ask if there is anything in what he wrote which suggests that he was an eye-witness, and I have indicated some details which suggests that he was (or, at the very least, had a detailed knowledge of it). These and a whole bunch of other things indicate that Swanson was not just repeating a story told to him. And even if we allow the possibility that he was repeating a story told to him, we would have to assume, pending evidence to the contrary, that as an informed and senior officer he would not have accepted the story - if he did accept the story - without some pretty persuasive argument/evidence, especially as it demanded a brake from normal police practice. And it is pretty certain that he did accept it because he does not in any sense indicate that he didn't.

So, pieces of evidence can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways and we can speculate about what someone might have done (which, given that we don't know much about what these people thought and how they hbehaved, and what their morals and values were, is pretty much a waste of time), but what we aim to achieve is the most sensible and balanced interpretation given the facts at our disposal.

Speaking personally, and honestly, and I really mean this..if somebody comes along with something that nails any name..Kosminski or otherwise, to being a killer suspected of The Whitechapel Murderer, or one of them, I'd be delighted. Totally delighted.
I don't particularly care for the name of the killer, or killers. But that's just me. Others do though. I'd just love to see a definitive breakthrough. It would make a wonderful change in the genre.

I fear however, that it will never happen, for one reason or another.

best wishes

Phil

I don't think it is likely that anything will come along that 'nails any name' either. We hope it will, but until it does we have to work with what we've got, and the Swanson marginalia is part of it. Put in simple terms, if anyone was likely to have been party to the identification then it was Swanson. If you think otherwise, you have to have evidence of some sort, be it a medical record to show that he was ill during the relevant period, or something to show he was on holiday, or something like that. And you have to demonstrate that contrary to all the good and sensible reasons that suggest that Swanson accepted the story, Swanson didn't accept it. And you have to demonstrate that if Swanson did accept it, that he was gullible and didn't have or ask for or otherwise seek support for what he was tole. And...

Sometimes you're not going to have the definitive answer, but just have to accept the circumstantial evidence, like when you find fish in the milk.