Private sale

[Lechmere]

A motive for the News of the World article being faked?
It established that the marginalia existed in 1981 including the Kosminski naming.
This is the thing that gives the marginalia financial value - and without it may explain why the News of the World didn't use the material in 1981.
Some have speculated that the Kosminski part was added between 1981 (when the collection was rediscovered) and 1987 when people living saw the marginalia.
There was realistically no chance if it being faked prior to this - I believe - I am going from memory.
If the unused News of the World article can be shown to be genuine then it would be a big step establishing that the marginalia is genuine.
The timing and circumstance of the finding of the News of the World article are strange.

[Stewart P Evans]

Presume

A motive for the News of the World article being faked?
It established that the marginalia existed in 1981 including the Kosminski naming.
This is the thing that gives the marginalia financial value - and without it may explain why the News of the World didn't use the material in 1981.
Some have speculated that the Kosminski part was added between 1981 (when the collection was rediscovered) and 1987 when people living saw the marginalia.
There was realistically no chance if it being faked prior to this - I believe - I am going from memory.
If the unused News of the World article can be shown to be genuine then it would be a big step establishing that the marginalia is genuine.
The timing and circumstance of the finding of the News of the World article are strange.

One must presume then, given this scenario, that you are saying that the person who 'faked' the 'marginalia' was Jim Swanson.

[Chris]

Diane Simpson is as good as either of the above and her opinion is just as valid as the two mentioned above and as stated she knows all about the ripper case and the letters so she is by no means a person to be discredited.

As Ally has already pointed out, this statement is astonishing. Who in their right mind would believe that a graphologist - who explicitly disclaims expertise in the comparison of handwriting in questioned documents - was "as good" as a document examiner with Dr Davies's experience? The idea is simply laughable.

But what Trevor Marriott really needs to explain is why he publicly claimed to have "conclusive" evidence from a handwriting expert that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson, when - according to the information from Marriott's book given by Mark above - he knew perfectly well that it was only a preliminary suggestion, and that his graphologist had said she would need access to an original to be positive.

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans
Not necessarily - I am not concerned with pointing fingers, merely in indicating areas where further investigation could effectively authenticate the marginalia conclusively - or not. If the unused News of the World article is fake then we can speculate perhaps.
A test of sorts was carried out on the marginalia prior to Dr Davies' test.
Was this an implicit accusation against Jim Swanson?
No of course not.
If it was asked 'why test it', then the explanation would have been, 'to make sure it isn't a forgery'.
Then someone could have said - 'who are you accusing' and all the current recriminations would have started - against Paul Begg (I think he arranged that test).
Similarly were the Davies tests an implicit accusation against Jim Swanson or anyone else?
Not really.
It should be accepted that items such as these are scrupulously tested - I think there are still holes in the process so far as the marginalia is concerned.

[Chris]

Not necessarily - I am not concerned with pointing fingers, merely in indicating areas where further investigation could effectively authenticate the marginalia conclusively - or not.

But that's exactly what you never do. I've lost count of the number of times you've evaded questions about what "tests" could actually be carried out.

All you do is post veiled hints about how this or that document might be a fake or a plant - always without a shred of evidence to support the suggestion - when you know full well that the Swanson family would have had to be complicit in the faking or the planting.

I wonder how you would feel if someone continually posted speculation on the Internet - without a shred of evidence - implying you might be involved in some criminal activity or other.

[John Bennett]

This is all about 'agendas' as far as I'm concerned.

We have the usual veiled accusations of forgery aimed at people known, and the refusal to accept the judgements of 2 handwriting analysts (Totty and Davies), whose reputations are basically being stomped all over.

Another thing is the readiness to accept the 'opinion' of one analyst (Simpson)over the 'opinion' of others. Why should this be? Basically, it looks like some people are going to continually doubt the findings of experts until one comes up with the 'right' answer, in other words, the judgement some want to hear.

Utter madness.

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'Swanson Marginalia'

Mr Evans
Not necessarily - I am not concerned with pointing fingers, merely in indicating areas where further investigation could effectively authenticate the marginalia conclusively - or not. If the unused News of the World article is fake then we can speculate perhaps.
A test of sorts was carried out on the marginalia prior to Dr Davies' test.
Was this an implicit accusation against Jim Swanson?
No of course not.
If it was asked 'why test it', then the explanation would have been, 'to make sure it isn't a forgery'.
Then someone could have said - 'who are you accusing' and all the current recriminations would have started - against Paul Begg (I think he arranged that test).
Similarly were the Davies tests an implicit accusation against Jim Swanson or anyone else?
Not really.
It should be accepted that items such as these are scrupulously tested - I think there are still holes in the process so far as the marginalia is concerned.

In answer to your first point, the 'marginalia' has already been examined by a highly qualified document examiner who has declared in favour of the authenticity of the handwriting (as Donald Swanson's).

No document examiner, however highly qualified, is capable of 'conclusively authenticating' handwriting as belonging to a certain person - they can give only their expert opinion. Hence the caveats placed by Dr. Christopher Davies M.A., D.Phil., of the Forensic Science Service. So I am not sure what point there is in having further tests made which, of course, could not pronounce on the handwriting to any greater degree than has already been done.

There was no previous test or proper examination of the handwriting. What was done was a comparison, of photocopies only, between the 'marginalia' and a an old police report written by Donald Swanson. Thus it was incorrect to publish the following words in the A to Z, "...and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner." I am sure that R. N. Totty (said employee of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory) would have been horrified to read this pronouncement of his opinion given on some photocopies.

As far as I know there was a television documentary many years ago involving Paul Begg and the Swanson material, Jim Swanson appeared in the piece, and it was deemed politic to have this expert opinion on such an important document possibly identifying the Ripper. Obviously such a controversial claim would be anticipated to raise many questions, not least of all the authenticity of the source.

Given the circumstances of the Anderson book containing the marginalia and annotations, its provenance and history, any suggestion that fakery is involved can devolve only to the Swanson family and, specifically Jim Swanson. It may be remembered that it was I, back in 2000, who first noticed the problems with the handwriting in the book. I could see an innocent explanation for these discrepancies but I knew that if I mentioned them publicly the cry of fakery would ring out loud.

Later, after Jim had passed away, I deemed it necessary to make my observations public knowledge, which I did on these boards. I immediately received abuse and veiled threats from the 'Andersonites' and it was no more than I expected. I did not consider that I was revealing any fakery - I was merely stating facts. And subsequent expert examination fully supported the points I had made about the notes. I am now on record as saying that I have seen no plausible evidence to indicate that the handwriting is anyone's but Donald Swanson's.

[Lechmere]

Chris
I haven't posted any veiled hints.
I have detailed the areas where further investigation is merited.
The antics of the 'friends' of the family have brought the Collection into disrepute.

John
Critiquing a report is not stomping over someone's reputation. Expert opinion is there to be accessed - not uncritically accepted. That is the way things work in the real - non Ripperological - world.

'Agendas' work both ways.
Is there an 'agenda'' in avoiding a sale through a reputable auction house?
Is there an 'agenda' in pretending that the items are of no value and no interest.
Is there an 'agenda' behind the shrill denouncements and failure to address issues when they are raised and to repeatedly and falsely claim that no one has raised specific issues with the process, nor suggested lines for further enquiry and hence testing?

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans
I think it is possible that Dr Davies, despite his qualifications, may have been swayed to be less than critical by various considerations that I have mentioned. He is a human being after all. This is no reflection on his professionalism or his knowledge.
His second report in essence gave the Marginalia a clean bill of health based on the 1923 hand written letter. This letter wiped away his reservations about the shakey hand writing.
However as the letter came from the same source as the Marginalia it is not a good test sample. This should be obvious, but this factor is not considered. The letter itself was not seemingly subjected to any scrutiny.
Also without explanation Dr Davies dropped his earlier suggestion that the shakey writing may have been caused by a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism.
These are the flaws within Dr Davies report as I see it.

[Chris]

Lechmere

Yet again you evade the question about tests.

[John Bennett]

John
Critiquing a report is not stomping over someone's reputation. Expert opinion is there to be accessed - not uncritically accepted. That is the way things work in the real - non Ripperological - world.

So how many expert opinions will there have to be before people like us (who are not handwriting analysts) sit down and say "OK, this thing is absolutely genuine/fake/tampered with?" If I was somebody who knew what I was talking about and saw this much doubt about my findings, I think I would be a tad deflated.

'Agendas' work both ways.

Is there an 'agenda'' in avoiding a sale through a reputable auction house?

Perhaps if one wants to be careful to whom such material falls into the hands of. This is a rather niche set of items. Perhaps they would rather it was owned by somebody who they were confident would look after it? I don't know, I've never spoken to the sellers about it.

Is there an 'agenda' in pretending that the items are of no value and no interest.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but the items are of value and interest... to people like us or collectors of true crime ephemera. My next-door neighbour probably couldn't care less even if he knew it existed.

[Chris]

I think it is possible that Dr Davies, despite his qualifications, may have been swayed to be less than critical by various considerations that I have mentioned.

You are saying that it is "possible" that Dr Davies acted in an unprofessional manner.

But do you have any evidence whatsoever that he did so?

[John Bennett]

His second report in essence gave the Marginalia a clean bill of health based on the 1923 hand written letter. This letter wiped away his reservations about the shakey hand writing.
However as the letter came from the same source as the Marginalia it is not a good test sample. This should be obvious, but this factor is not considered.

So a letter owned by the family of the person who is meant to have written it is NOT A GOOD TEST SAMPLE?

So what would you suggest is?

[Sally]

Ed –

What a storm in a teacup.

Firstly, it isn’t odd that Dr Davies looked at the marginalia in its current home, as you seem to imagine. That is common practice among all professionals who examine paper documents of antiquity (so historians, archivists, etc.) with good reason. There’s no need to look for any ‘suspicious’ circumstances there. As a researcher yourself, I’m surprised that you don’t know that – although I suppose to be fair if you mainly used digitised online records for your research you might not.

Secondly, you speak of further tests. What further tests would you like to see done, and how do you imagine such tests would resolve the question of forgery (as you evidently consider there to be)?

Say there was a test for graphite (I have no idea whether there is or not, but I can see no other obvious ‘scientific’ way of testing the marginalia for fakery). And say that this test determined that a different pencil had been used to add the name ‘Kosminski’. What do you think would that prove? That it had been written by a different hand? No. That it had been written at a different time? No. That it was faked? No.

It would only tell you that a different pencil had been used.

Further examinations by other ‘writing analysers’ would only use the same battery of tests – and as the source material doesn’t change, it’s unlikely that their conclusions would be very different. So what would you hope to achieve with further tests, exactly?

I ask because whilst I’m all for proper testing, I really can’t think how the recent testing of this document is wanting?

Perhaps you're looking for something that doesn't exist.

Thirdly, I think I agree with others who have suggested that you may be overstating the ‘value’ of the marginalia.

Say it’s faked. Ok – and then what? The forger would make a fortune from revealing the identity of Jack the Ripper? Well, no, because the marginalia doesn’t reveal the identity of the Ripper, does it? All that it proves, even if genuine, is that Kosminski was considered to be the likely culprit by a couple of senior police officials at the time.

Interesting though that is – and not to dismiss or under play it - it isn’t proof of culpability.

I can’t help thinking, personally, that if the marginalia is faked, the forger missed a golden opportunity.

But as it stands, it isn’t the Golden Ticket at all, is it?

As to this purported public interest and market for the Marginalia - Did you see Channel 4’s ‘Four Rooms’ recently, in which the Maybrick Watch was offered for sale? The asking price was in a similar ball park to that being bandied about for the Marginalia. Interestingly, not one of the dealers was willing to pay more than a few hundred pounds for it. I think that tells you something about the market value of Ripper memorabilia.

Aside from a comparatively small number of enthusiasts, to whom they are priceless; there isn’t the market for such things that you seem to envisage. It’s a niche market – and a small one, too.

Given that, surely a private sale is the sensible way forward?

I think unless one has a dog in this fight, there really isn’t an issue here.

[Lechmere]

John

I doubt that a professional document examiner would be deflated if someone criticised their findings. If they were that precious then they are probably in the wrong profession.

I am slightly surprised that you are asking why the letter should be questioned.

If you gave me a £10 note and for whatever reason I wanted to check that it was not a forgery, it would not be very sensible for me to check it against another £10 that you had given me. Would it?

The only possible reason that Dr Davies tested the Marginalia was to ensure that it is not a forgery. Testing the handwriting in the Marginalia against another sample of handwriting from the same source is not exactly what you would characterise as an ideal test.

Surely this is not difficult to follow?

It might be the case that no other samples are available, after all a valid sample would have to be from the last few years of DS Swanson’s life. That being the case the 1923 letter should have been closely scrutinised. It should be very closely looked at. There is the possibility, I think, that there may also be later notes in DS Swanson’s note book or address book.
There is no indication that the 1923 letter was put under any scrutiny. Particularly as it only came to light comparatively recently.

We have been previously told that there is a pile of other correspondence that still hadn’t been gone through. Perhaps there are other relevant letters in that pile? Although obviously from the same source he more items the less likely they are to be forgeries and possibly some may be in ink and so capable of being tested more rigorously.
It is to be regretted that all these items of correspondence were not sorted through back in the 1980s when various people first had contact with the family.
No credible explanation has been offered for the failure to properly evaluate all this documentation.

Drip feeding material out many years later is also a cause for concern. That again should be obvious.
I don’t know what the explanation for this is. I don’t know whether the family have been poorly advised or whether it was their own choice.

To those who moan that this episode will put off other people form coming forward, then yes it probably will, but that is in part due to the way this family have handled their own material.
If they wish to make money from it – and I don’t blame them for that – and this is the second time they are doing it, then they should expect to be held up for examination.
The history of the Marginalia is almost a case study of how not to proceed.
Material has been lost. The marginalia was written over. A false dedication was stuck in the front. The supporting documentation has been drip fed out.
It is possible that some of the blame lies with people in the ‘Ripperological’ community who have dealings with them and who have not advised them well.
I don’t know what advice has been given and taken.

If I had been involved I would immediately have asked to go through all the paperwork (and not rested until they did) and advised them to sell through a reputable auction house, and I would have tried (and succeeded – ha!) to set up a TV deal.
In case anyone thinks I am jealous that I was not involved – I am not. I am just setting out what should have been done.

You ask how many more tests should be done? I have said I would be satisfied with authentication provided by an established auction house. I would expect them to close off gaps that I have identified. I can’t speak for anyone else.

Is there an 'agenda' in pretending that the items are of no value and no interest.
This was a reference to Ally’s earlier claims.