Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - by John Wheat 1 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Ripper Authors: Can You Name this book/Author? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (91 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lech versus Kos - (25 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Jack leave his fingerprints on Mary Jane Kelly? - (24 posts)
Ripper Authors: Can You Name this book/Author? - (10 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (9 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (8 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2008, 11:54 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,179
Default The Swanson Marginalia

This thread unfortunately lost much information and was originally a discussion about the authenticity of the Marginalia. I will attempt to retrieve more in the coming days. If anyone wishes to repost any information, please do so.



jeffl has just posted in the Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of The 'Swanson Marginalia'.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=97
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by Grey Hunter)---
Dr. Christopher Davies, who actually confirmed my findings, stating, "What was interesting about analysing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were because they were made some years later."
---End Quote---
Hi Grey Hunter
I believe it was I that asked the question about the Marginalia at conferance. i still have it on tape and will try and get you a copy now that i have Final Cut Pro set up at home...just been busy trying to pay the morgage!
However I was curious about the above quote. It seems to suggest that Dr Christopher Davies believes that the second set of notes were writen "some years later".
I find this rather a curious conclusion. Surely no one knows if the second set of notes were writen 'Some years later' or simply in the time it took to go to the bathroom, pick up another pencil and continue writing.
Surely if Dr Smith could accertain the break between the two sets of hand writing he should have been more specific.
Surely our experience of the Maybrick Diary should tell us almost nothing can be gaged about the time the writing was actually committed (excuse Kosminski pun) to paper?
Yours Jeff
PS Many thanks again for all your time and interesting posts on the Marginalia...even from chelsea fans... love to stinky..





snelson has just posted in the Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of The 'Swanson Marginalia'.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=97
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
"With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), the Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as "Stepney Workhouse"."
I've always thought this and have argued that Swanson wouldn't have misnamed the Workhouse and mistakenly thought that the suspect had died soon after admission to the asylum.
However, Paul Begg, in The Facts, p. 378, writes that "the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."
Maybe a search of the Stepney Union, St. Leonard Street, records could reveal something (I don't think that Fido or Sugden covered these records, assuming that they still exist). Rob House accessed the Bromley (Stepney) Sick Asylum records and found Thomas Murray.
***************

Quote (Originally by jeffl)---
PS Many thanks again for all your time and interesting posts on the Marginalia...even from chelsea fans... love to stinky..
---End Quote---
Watch It, Jeff !!!
My ten year-old son, by the way, has loaded his iPod with Cockney Rejects and Sham 69. He says his favourite song is Borstal Breakout.



---Quote (Originally by snelson)---
However, Paul Begg, in The Facts, p. 378, writes that "the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."
---End Quote---
"was": Begg's emphasis.
Hi Scott,
I was acutely aware of Begg's assertion, when typing my initial post to this thread.




cgp100 has just posted in the Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of The 'Swanson Marginalia'.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=97
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by Septic Blue)---
*_The Bottom Line_**:* With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as “Stepney Workhouse”.
---End Quote---

I'm sure you're absolutely right as far as the official designation goes. And there would have to be solid evidence before anyone could accept that MEOT Workhouse was known unofficially as Stepney Workhouse.

But I think it's fair to point out that the possibility isn't as outlandish as it may sound, because MEOT Workhouse was close to Stepney Green - the area that was known as Stepney, and where the word "Stepney" is likely to be printed on a map - whereas the Stepney Union Workhouse was more than a mile further east, in the area known as Bromley by Bow.

Chris Phillips
***************




jeffl has just posted in the Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of The 'Swanson Marginalia'.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=97
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
[quote=Septic Blue;135010]Watch It, Jeff !!!
My ten year-old son, by the way, has loaded his iPod with Cockney Rejects and Sham 69. He says his favourite song is Borstal Breakout.
He'll be singing and blowing those bubbles next! true eastender
Seriously, your always going to have problems with anything that relies on oral history, or how places may have been known at differant times. You've only got to check the Maybrick thread for that.
You could be correct. Obviously Fideo, doesn't think Swanson meant Aaron Kosminski.
But it is possible, as Chris pionts out, Swanson new exactly what he was saying by Stepney work house. And for my money Aaron is still the best suspect...certainly he fits how you would expect a scitzophrenic serial killer to behave if he was Jack.
The marginalia is the most important evidence there is...
Jeff
***************
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:44 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

I have managed to retrieve all of the data from this thread from January 2006 to December 2007. I will begin reposting it, please bear with me, there is a lot of it. Unfortunately it is text only, without any of the images posted. Also, being straight text, where people have quoted in posts this just shows up as normal text which can be a little confusing.

Last edited by Ash : 02-18-2008 at 03:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:47 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 04:09 PM
The so-called 'Swanson Marginalia' is a crucial part of the 'Kosminski as a suspect' argument, or, indeed, much of the 'Polish Jew suspect' theorising. I thought that a thread to discuss this particular aspect of the case would be interesting, even useful.

Does anyone have any thoughts on Swanson's influential annotated copy of Anderson's book?
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 04:30 PM
Here is the marginalia on page 138 of the book.

55

As you can see it is very faded now, I shall see if I can do a better copy.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 04:37 PM
And the annotaion on the rear free endpaper.

56

Again not very clear I'm afraid.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 04:42 PM
Here's the important last sentence of the endpaper annotation.

57
________________________________________
How Brown
14th January 2006, 05:05 PM
Dear Grey Hunter :



Perhaps you could elucidate on your opinions of why the most hunted man in history would be such an apparent problem for the authorities to reveal?

I'm aware of the arguments based on some potential legalities being violated,but in all seriousness,why would they worry about pointing out an insane culprit ? What possible damage would that have done to the Crown, if his family objected ? Seriously?
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 05:06 PM
Here's an early photocopy of the rear endpaper annotation.

58
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
14th January 2006, 05:38 PM
Thank you howard.

And therein lies the rub.

The reasons why the authorities had a problem in publicly revealing the names of the suspects is pretty obvious - they were only suspects! In other words they lacked proof against any suspect and could not give publicity to names such as Kosminski, insane or not, and Druitt without a backlash.

We all know the complex pro and con arguments and how involved they can get. Suffice to say a couple of Scotland Yard officers could not act alone and in secret without others having the same knowledge. The mere fact that Anderson favoured his Polish Jew suspect whilst Macnaghten always favoured Druitt is proof in black and white that there was no consensus at Scotland Yard; and that all we are talking about are theories and not 'definitely ascertained facts.'
________________________________________
robert
15th January 2006, 10:31 AM
Could I ask a question? (and apologies if I've already asked this on the old Boards - I have a mind like a sieve lately) : the marginalia were initialled 'DSS.' Did Swanson initial any of his other annotations in the book?

Robert
________________________________________
George Hutchinson
15th January 2006, 11:11 AM
Dear everyone,

In spite of repeated requests, someone with a certain agenda chose to ignore those requests and attempt to identify Grey Hunter.

Unfortunately, Grey Hunter has now withdrawn from the boards and will NOT be returning.

This is permanent. I think maybe sometimes Free Speech on these boards should not be available to those whose sole intent is to completely ruin things for everybody else. I shall be e-mailing Spryder about this issue.

PHILIP
________________________________________
How Brown
15th January 2006, 12:37 PM
Phil:

Please contact him and ask him to reconsider. Maybe the person who went after him personally by name was not aware of his wishes. After all,its still early for the new format of the boards. Give it a try,Phil. Please?
________________________________________
robert
15th January 2006, 12:40 PM
We can ill afford to lose posters like Grey Hunter.

Robert
________________________________________
chrisjd
15th January 2006, 12:49 PM
please stop spreading it further and take it behind the scenes.

Christian
________________________________________
rclack
15th January 2006, 02:13 PM
Hi Robert.

I've got this example of Swanson's signiture

82

Rob
________________________________________
Ally
15th January 2006, 02:14 PM
Dear everyone,

In spite of repeated requests, someone with a certain agenda chose to ignore those requests and attempt to identify Grey Hunter.



What repeated requests? One of the handy search features on this forum is that we can view all posts ever composed by a poster. After searching, I found ONE post written by him on his welcome thread. Not everyone reads every single post written by every single poster and memorizes their particular preferences. I had no idea that he wished to be called exclusively Grey Hunter and I probably would have referred to him by his given name if I had replied here, which is what I came here to do.

If Grey Hunter really did not want his identity known, he had the option of a.) picking a new name that no one knew him under or b.) if he wanted to be known as Grey Hunter posting a line in his signature asking to be referred to only as Grey Hunter. He did neither of those things. I respect what Grey Hunter has to contribute to these boards tremendously, but he can't expect that people will be mind-readers and know what he wants and when he wants it or to even follow it. If people know who you are, they are going to call you by name. It's that simple. If he truly doesn't wish to be known, he can pick a new name and post under it. If he wants people to know who he is but lashes out at them should they ever happen to call him that, that's just unreasonable.
________________________________________
robert
15th January 2006, 02:24 PM
Hi Rob

Is that from the book? I can't actually see it, though one of Grey Hunter's images has just shown up for the first time. I must try and sort my computer out.

Robert
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:49 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

rclack
15th January 2006, 02:28 PM
Hi Robert,

It's from a Telegram he signed. It is dated May 27 1901

Rob
________________________________________
Ally
15th January 2006, 02:33 PM
Edited because: Never mind. I asked when it was dated but it was answered in Rob's latest post.
________________________________________
Ally
15th January 2006, 02:37 PM
So why don't we all just quit beating around the bush and get to what this topic is really about. Was the marginalia forged? Now I understand that it has a supposedly impeccable provenance, etc. But of course discrepancies stand out like the DSS doesn't look anything like his signature, the Kosminski line seems awkward and somewhat out of place and tacked on etc.

So rather than doing the dance, let's just weigh in on whether we think it is forged or not.

Takers?
________________________________________
bobhinton
15th January 2006, 03:00 PM
Oh Lord - not more secret squirrel nonsense!

HIR
________________________________________
suzi
15th January 2006, 03:14 PM
Passwords at the ready! No slacking now!!!!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
15th January 2006, 03:18 PM
Rob C
Thanks for that sample (!) of Swanson's handwriting.it does of course fit with the Copperplate remplate which Ive been rattling on about on another thread but cant find it at the mo!
Strangely anonymous this well taught Copperplate hand isn't it?


Suzi (MIFAP)
________________________________________
suzi
15th January 2006, 03:19 PM
Template too!!!!!
________________________________________
George Hutchinson
15th January 2006, 03:35 PM
Hi Bob -

The issue was nothing to do with Grey Hunter being 'outed'. As he has pointed out to me, people who need to know his ID know. It's not a secret. The 'mystery' is more so people who aren't in the field who might choose to abuse that knowledge are left in the dark.

Grey Hunter's issue was actually to do with the rudeness of a certain post which has now been removed. Debate and challenge are healthy. Nastiness serves no purpose. There are too many unpleasant people in this community.

PHILIP
________________________________________
jdpegg
15th January 2006, 04:28 PM
Ally,

well i don't suppose its authenticity has ever been properly established has it?

Jenni
________________________________________
jason_connachan
15th January 2006, 04:58 PM
So why don't we all just quit beating around the bush and get to what this topic is really about. Was the marginalia forged? Now I understand that it has a supposedly impeccable provenance, etc. But of course discrepancies stand out like the DSS doesn't look anything like his signature, the Kosminski line seems awkward and somewhat out of place and tacked on etc.

So rather than doing the dance, let's just weigh in on whether we think it is forged or not.

Takers?
Im not doubting its authenticity, but the Kosminki line almost seems an afterthought by Swanson.
________________________________________
How Brown
15th January 2006, 05:50 PM
Ally;

No idea if it was forged.

What stands out for me is that Swanson wrote that the suspect was fingered and then incarcerated, and Anderson has it that the suspect was incarcerated and then identified.

Good question....
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 06:39 PM
Here is Swanson's signature from a letter, in my collection, written to Anderson.

86
________________________________________
apwolf
15th January 2006, 07:07 PM
While we are at comparing signatures and the like, Grey Hunter, any chance of comparing the Littlechild signature that I found recently in other annotations of a different connexion, with more recognised material that might be around?
Just to keep things neat.
Must say Iím enjoying the material you are putting up here, and elsewhere.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 07:20 PM
Yes, I shall post Littlechild's signature on a separate thread. As regards the Swanson Marginalia, my intention was to establish a timeline as regards its provenance and publication. However, as we have seemingly 'rushed headlong' into handwriting samples, here is a longer example written by Swanson.

87

It's interesting to see how it does vary slightly from the previous example.
________________________________________
Glenn L Andersson
15th January 2006, 07:29 PM
Grey Hunter,

"It's interesting to see how it does vary slightly from the previous example."

Indeed it does, and I must say it does so to an extent that it makes me slightly puzzled. If the one in the marginalia is genuine, could the reason for the discrepancy be that the marginalia is written when he was much older?

I must say that this is a subject that has not before entered my mind. Are we here faced with the possibility that the marginalia might in fact be a fake???? I know, for some this is probably to beat in open doors, but I must admit I have never heard of the idea that it might not be genuine, but indeed how knows?
Anyway, provocing thoughts here.
________________________________________
Ally
15th January 2006, 07:39 PM
Considering the examples posted by Rob and Grey, I have to say that I can see similarities in how the D S and S are written in all three of those, slight differences on the D in one but still the high arching underside. I see no similarity to the DSS in the memorabilia. I suppose we could be looking at time differences, perhaps age made his writing more shaky? I think it would be interesting if we could put the four samples back on the thread in one post in chronological order, if that would be possible?
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 07:43 PM
It is not unusual for handwriting to vary, especially as one gets older. However, basic structures usually remain the same. Certainly age is a factor, and as people get older their handwriting very often deteriorates.

I started this thread to analyse the first appearance of the marginalia and its subsequent dissemination to the public. However, it seems to have quickly devolved into the question of whether it is authentic or not. It is a very important and influential item of Ripper documentation, therefore its authenticity is of the utmost concern. Indeed its influence was immediately felt when it was first published just before the Ripper centenary in 1987. It had the effect of turning previous Ripper thinking about as regards the then most popular viable Ripper suspects. Prior to 1988 Druitt had held sway amongst the leading authorities as the most probable Ripper. After 1988 Kosminski quickly became the favourite, directly as a result of the 'Swanson Marginalia.' As we know, both Druitt and Kosminski had been named by Macnaghten in his 1894 memorandum.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of posters on this rather important subject.
________________________________________
Ally
15th January 2006, 07:50 PM
This is something else that has been niggling at me which is absolutely petty and stupid but none the less, irritating to me. We may have to bring in Mr. Omlor to answer this question, but what is the predominance of people initialing their marginalia? I mean I write "marginalia" in my textbooks all the time and don't feel the need to initialize it. Was he in the habit of initializing all his margin notes? Do people do this? Why?

I realize this is a really idiotic question overall, but it was something I have been thinking about whenever the subject of the marginalia arises.
________________________________________
rapunzel676
15th January 2006, 08:08 PM
I'm no expert, but I just don't see an appreciable difference between the known signatures and the initialing at the end of the marginalia except perhaps that which could be attributed to age and the haste with which it was written. Furthermore, I don't know if it's true of everyone, but when I've initialed something, the result doesn't necessarily resemble my ordinary signature--which itself is subject to a number of minute variations in each of its incarnations. Also, it might be worth noting that our signatures on official documents can vary from those in informal correspondence or rough notes.

Again, just my opinion, but I just don't see the marginalia as anything but very rough notes, written in haste by a retired police official, possibly for nothing more than personal satisfaction or, more likely, family and friends. If he'd intended them for mass consumption, one would think a man as organized and efficient as Swanson, with his significant knowledge of the case, would have written something more similar in form and content to the Macnaghten memoranda.
________________________________________
Lyn
15th January 2006, 08:11 PM
Ally,

I don't consider that to be a petty question -- in fact, I'd like to know how common the initialing of marginalia was during the late Victorian period.

I personally never initial mine.

Lyn
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:50 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 08:24 PM
The only aim that anyone should have in regard to this is to establish good provenance and the probablility of all the writing being in the hand of Donald Swanson himself. It is a plus that this copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life is still in the hands of the Swanson family which greatly reduces the possibility of someone else writing it.

However, it is because of its historical importance that the point should be clarified, for the entry on it in The Jack the Ripper A-Z states -

"Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

This comment was as a result of suspicions stated by Harrison in his book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved, 1991.

The problem is that Harrison's suggestion must raise the unfortunate extrapolation that if the notes aren't genuine then the person responsible for writing them belongs to a very limited number. I have to confess that the one thing that I was never very happy about was the very convenient sentence 'Kosminski was the suspect - DSS' at the very end of the endpaper annotation. Not so long ago when I raised the possibility of a question over the authenticity of the marginalia the response I received was almost hysterical and the cry of 'libel' was even raised.

However, my concern is merely that the marginalia has never really been questioned, nor properly authenticated. Great if it is genuine, then we all know that we are not wasting our time putting the information it contains into our theorising and speculation.

It is interesting to see that a Home Office document examiner has confirmed the handwriting as Swanson's, but surely such an expert cannot confirm that. He may say that in his opinion it is Swanson's or that it appears to be. The rest of us non-experts may only assess what it looks like but our opinion wouldn't carry too much weight. As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, the document examiner's pronouncement has never been published, and I believe that he examined only a photocopy of the marginalia and a photocopy of Swanson's handwriting from the official records whereas in such examinations only originals should be used.
________________________________________
How Brown
15th January 2006, 08:41 PM
Ally:

Lyn's right. Its an outstanding question. Who does initial their own private material?

Grey Hunter:

Your post raises the question...What about samples of other marginalia Swanson may have written being compared to this specific one? Would James Swanson permit such a test using the original and not a photocopy?
________________________________________
bobhinton
15th January 2006, 08:41 PM
I've just been looking at the two Swanson signatures above, one from the telegram and one from the Marginalia.

I've got to say I would be very surprised if they were done by the same person.

Secondly, please can we have less of the 'secret squirrel' nonsense? All this prima donna stuff about secret identities is really rather tiresome!
________________________________________
robert
15th January 2006, 08:48 PM
If there is a question mark over the authenticity of the marginalia, I suppose this might relate to either the whole of it, or just the final sentence.

NB I am not accusing anybody of tampering with it.

Robert
________________________________________
Natalie Severn
15th January 2006, 09:07 PM
My own view/guess is that the Swanson marginalia is a piece of guesswork by Swanson---stemming from another piece of guesswork by Anderson.IMHO it went along the lines of," My boss Anderson knew all along
and said it from the start that it was a "low class Polish Jew".I know who he was referring to....it wasnt a,b or c it was this chap named Kosminski-a right odd ball who ate out of gutters/was much taken up with "solitary vices" and he was identified[I reckon this is where it went completely pear shaped and whatever happened there ,at the Hove Seaside Home ,I cant believe
anybody there identified the real Whitechapel murderer] . As Grey Hunter says above if they had known who it was there would have been consensus at least between Macnaghten and Anderson.Also we would know for certain they knew.
I reckon Monro, Anderson, Littlechild and a lot of the others involved were simply up to their necks in Jubilee Plots, the Special Inquiry of October 1888 etc which must have taken priority over everything else at this point and they wouldnt have had time or energy to have been paying that kind of close minute by minute attention to this case.Abberline was giving it his all ...and you dont hear of him suggesting any of these suspects.On the contrary he pooh poohs the idea saying its all poppycock.
Natalie
________________________________________
apwolf
15th January 2006, 09:27 PM
I do know that it is not uncommon to come across volumes from this time period which have been scrawled upon by some of the people we discuss, and they do invariably place a signature on those jottings, almost as if they are getting their own back for some imagined or very real slight from their days in service together.
Perhaps they knew that one day history would bring them to account?
My real gut feeling is that I would have been happier finding this Swanson document in somewhere like the Harvard Law Library, locked away just after it was written, rather than with the family.
I have a family of my own.
I get hypothermia when I think what they might do with my documentia.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 10:32 PM
As I said, the idea here was to explore the emergence of the marginalia and its immense influence on Ripper thinking and theorising. It is quite amazing how this aspect of the story has been largely ignored over the years. Kosminski as a Ripper suspect had first been named in a Ripper book in 1965 with the publication of Tom Cullen's Autumn of Terror, in which the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten memoranda was published. In 1968, a year after I first visited the Ripper murder sites, I acquired my first set of Major Arthur Griffith's Mysteries of Police and Crime, illustrated 3-volume version (c. 1902), and it seemed pretty clear to me that the three Ripper suspects described by Griffiths but not named, were the same three as had appeared in Cullen's book in the Macnaghten draft. Druitt was, probably because of Cullen's influence, my favoured suspect.

Donald Swanson had five children and the father of Jim Swanson was the eldest of these. The last of Donald Swanson's children to die was Alice Julia in 1981. Jim Swanson was her executor and amongst all the material he had to deal with were the papers relating to the appointment of Donald Swanson to take charge of the Whitechapel murders investigation and Anderson's book which had been presented to Donald Swanson by Anderson. Jim Swanson read the papers and looked at the book and came across his grandfather's pencil written notes that disclosed the identity of the Ripper. Things then remained that way until October 1987.

To be continued...
________________________________________
rclack
15th January 2006, 10:47 PM
Hi Grey Hunter

A lot of the Ripper letters were initialed by Donald Swanson. Are there any clear examples out there that we can use to compare?

Rob
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:51 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 10:55 PM
Hi Rob,

Yes there are, I have about three hundred photographs of the Ripper letters and I shall be sorting some out in due course and posting them.

Best Wishes,

GH
________________________________________
rclack
15th January 2006, 11:00 PM
Thank you,

All the best

Rob
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
15th January 2006, 11:12 PM
How, sorry I missed your earlier query, I'm afraid Jim Swanson died some time ago and the book is in the hands of his son who lives in the western part of the country. As I said I have an original page of a letter written by Donald Swanson to Anderson in my collection, and I can post the whole page if readers would like to see it. GH
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 07:30 AM
1987 was a very busy year Ripper-wise. It was almost the centenary of the murders and there were many articles in the newspapers during this period. There also appeared to be a race for the publication of centenary books and seven Ripper books were published that year. Amongst them was Martin Fido's very good The Crimes Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper. It was pioneering in that it was the first book to develop the theory of a Polish Jew suspect being Jack the Ripper. He was the first to research the asylum records and he identified what he thought to be a likely Ripper in David Cohen. He also discovered one Aaron Kosminski whose name did not appear in the records until 1891 and Fido thought that he must be Anderson's Polish Jew and Macnaghten's Kosminski, although he did not think that he could be the Ripper. For the first time this information was published and set the basis for further research along these lines. A review of Fido's book by Colin Wilson was published and in this it was stated that Assistant Commissioner Anderson had declared confidently that he knew the Ripper's identity, that his suspect was a Polish Jew, and that Melville Macnaghten had made 'a famous list of three major suspects,' including Montague John Druitt, and a Polish Jew called Kosminski. This review was read by Jim Swanson as well as an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 3 October 1987. On reading this latter piece Jim Swanson thought that it was "a lot of rubbish about Jack the Ripper" and that "As I had the proof of Jack's identity I felt it only fair to my Grand father & Anderson to make the facts known. Firstly to get some recognition of the part my Grand father played and secondly that the most senior people at Scotland Yard were on the ball and were completely satisfied they knew his identity and that he had been safely put away." Swanson was right that up until this time Ripper authors had not recognised the important part his grandfather had played in the Ripper investigation and Swanson was fairly low profile in the so far published books on the case, not appearing at all in some. Jim Swanson had amongst his grandfather's papers, as we have seen, the handwritten report by the Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren, putting Swanson in overall charge of the Whitechapel murders investigation. It was time he felt to redress the situation, and set the record straight.

To be continued...
________________________________________
harry
16th January 2006, 07:34 AM
As a police officer,Swanson would no doubt be familiar with initialising additions or deletions in statements or documents passing through his control.So initialising the marginela may have been as much habit or thouroughness when dealing in personnel matters.

So nothing in the fact that it was done in that instance,appears out of place,and as others have said,other factors may account for differences in the appearance of the initials.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 09:36 AM
Jim Swanson got in touch with Charles Nevin of the Daily Telegraph and invited him to come and see his grandfather's papers. Nevin accepted the invitation and the result was his famous article in the Daily Telegraph of October 19, 1987, publishing for the first time the 'Swanson marginalia.' However, Nevin noted the caveats involved in accepting the marginalia without question. He mentioned that Aaron Kosminski was not committed until 1891, three years after the murders took place, that Swanson had written that Kosminski died shortly afterwards, when in fact he did not die until 1919, that the Seaside Home did not open until 1890 and so on, citing Martin Fido's book and saying that Fido was intrigued by the Swanson notes but still unconvinced. This resulted in Fido writing a letter to the paper, from Penzance, that was published under the heading 'Muddle over suspects.' In this letter Fido stated that it was misleading to say that he was "intrigued but unconvinced" by Chief Inspector Swanson's crucial identification. Fido was 'quite convinced' that Swanson completely confirmed his thesis that Aaron Kosminski who lived at "his brother's house in Whitechapel" was somehow confused with David Cohen, who probably committed the Whitechapel murders and "in a very short time...was taken to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards." The final words describing Cohen and no other pauper lunatic or Colney Hatch inmate. According to Fido the reference to the City CID suggested that the Met and the City followed up 'Cohen and Kozminski respectively but came to believe that they were the same man whose name had been correctly identfied by the City force who had traced his residence and brother. Therefore as the City knew the actual Kozminski to be innocent Col. Smith was outraged when he found Anderson apparently accusing him twenty years after the event.
It was a very propitious time for the Swanson marginalia to appear in the public forum, especially as the first Ripper book mentioning the Polish Jew suspect was already published and another was to appear the following year.

To be continued...
________________________________________
monty
16th January 2006, 10:36 AM
An obvious question, if a hoax, is why?

I guess GH will come to that.

Monty


PS Bob, why the stress? and How do I know you are indeed Bob Hinton??
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 10:45 AM
Monty, This thread wasn't started to prove anything a hoax, it was to fully explore the appearance of the Swanson marginalia in a proper timeline together with many details of that appearance never before published. It does, of course, touch upon, as it should, the level of authenticity of the marginalia, especially as this was questioned by Paul Harrison back in 1991 and commented upon in the A-Z. Added to this others, including myself, have raised the question of the authenticity of the whole, especially as very few people have seen the original and it is too important not to be accepted without question. As to why something should be hoaxed, you should know better than to ask such a thing.
GH
________________________________________
monty
16th January 2006, 12:48 PM
Monty, This thread wasn't started to prove anything a hoax, it was to fully explore the appearance of the Swanson marginalia in a proper timeline together with many details of that appearance never before published. It does, of course, touch upon, as it should, the level of authenticity of the marginalia, especially as this was questioned by Paul Harrison back in 1991 and commented upon in the A-Z. Added to this others, including myself, have raised the question of the authenticity of the whole, especially as very few people have seen the original and it is too important not to be accepted without question. As to why something should be hoaxed, you should know better than to ask such a thing.
GH

GH,

I understand why this thread exists but as you state youself, it does touch upon authenticity. And if the authenticity is being questioned by Paul Harrison, yourself or whoever then surely the why must be pondered also, no?

I agree, far too important just to be accepted on face value. After all, we only have to look at Jennis work regarding the paperwork on Williams. Its important to verify documents that support theories.

And you would think Id no better, wouldnt you?

Cheers
Monty
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:55 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 01:09 PM
In the actual centenary year another Ripper book appeared and it was one of the best centenary offerings. It was Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper The Uncensored Facts. As the Swanson marginalia had appeared the year before it was possible for Begg to be the first to publish, in full in a Ripper book, the Swanson marginalia.

Begg was in touch with Jim Swanson and was able to gain access to the Anderson book and sections of the marginalia were reproduced in his book. Unlike Fido, Begg was of the opinion that the marginalia must refer to Aaron Kosminski and he produced a detailed summary of all the available material on this aspect quoting both Anderson and Swanson at length. There were now two books detailing the Polish Jew suspect arguments and the stage was set for the Ripper world to re-assess the most likely Ripper candidate.

1988 also saw the Police History Society's annual conference held at the City of London's Wood Street Police station, on 24 September. It was a Jack the Ripper 'special' and a panel of invited speakers including Robin Odell, Donald Rumbelow, Colin Wilson, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner, all of whom had recently produced Ripper books, was present. It was chaired by Donald Rumbelow. Never had there been such a gathering of Ripper authorities and each member of the panel discussed an aspect of the case which included the recently discovered Swanson marginalia and and the perceived three main suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Cohen. Also present were James Swanson and Joseph Gorman 'Sickert.' Druitt was voted most likely Ripper suspect, but his days were numbered. A new era of Ripper research was about to be ushered in by three authors who had very recently met each other. They were Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner.

Martin Fido's well researched book of 1987 and his revelations about Polish Jew suspects were groundbreaking and added much information to the previously meagre knowledge of Kosminski. Paul Begg's 1988 book was no less important and contained scrupulous sourcing and useful historical background material. Although ostensibly a reference work, it was heavily pro-Anderson and decidedly favoured Kosminski as a suspect. As well as publishing the Swanson marginalia in full for the first time, it also suggested many avenues for future researchers to follow in seeking an answer to the Polish Jew conundrum posed by Anderson and Swanson. An example is Begg's discovery of the fact that Joseph Levy, one of the three Jews leaving the Imperial Club in Duke Street just before Eddowes' murder, and who saw what appeared to be the murdered woman with a suspect, had stood as referee for a Polish Jew applicant for naturalisation in 1877. That applicant was a Martin Kosminski, and a Kosminski was also a Ripper suspect named by Macnaghten and in the Swanson marginalia (and by implication Anderson), unfortunately without mention of a first name. Fido's research had revealed the incarceration of the imbecile Aaron Kosminski in 1891 and he seemed almost certainly to be the Kosminski referred to in the aforementioned references. Begg was disappointed to find that no family connection could be made between the 1877 applicant Martin, and the asylum inmate Aaron; they were apparently different families. However, Begg speculated that "Martin need not have been the suspect. It could have been a brother or a cousin about whom nothing is at present known. It would be interesting if future research could produce a family link between Martin and Aaron Kosminski." He noted that it could be a 'huge coincidence' that there was a Levy-Kosminski connection but that as it was not a particularly common name the odds against such a coincidence must be considerable. To this day the research on this aspect goes on and the theories based on it continue to be developed.

To be continued...
________________________________________
mariag
16th January 2006, 02:32 PM
Ally brings up a very good point.

Reasons I can think of to initial marginalia are:

the book wasn't his and he wanted to make sure that the owner realized who had written in it.

he had a massive ego so had to put his initials on notes in his own hand in his own book.

posterity

someone else wrote the initials to remember who it was who had written the notes.


I just hope that the marginalia aren't a fake-- I don't know if I can stand any more uncertainty.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 03:12 PM
As for Jim Swanson, he remained convinced that the Kosminski named by his grandfather was the Ripper and thought that the differences between his grandfather's statement that "he died shortly afterwards" and the results of Martin Fido's research into the Colney Hatch records did not alter that conviction.

After the centenary revelations and into the next decade, Kosminski became the preferred suspect amongst the leading Ripper authorities. I too went along with that idea.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:56 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

fido
16th January 2006, 03:40 PM
Grateful thanks to Grey Hunter for his many kind remarks.
A couple of points should perhaps be added to his time line. When Jim Swanson and his brother first acquired their grandfather's copy of Anderson's memoirs and saw the marginalia they immediately recognized the public interest, and offered the information for sale to the News of the World. A reporter took details and they were paid a reasonable fee for the time - something like seventy-five pounds if I remember aright. Shortly after that N o W changed owners or editor, and the new regime didn't use the material. The Swanson brothers felt it was no longer theirs to publish, and when he saw the reviews of new Ripper work in 1987, Jim Swanson didn't contact the Telegraph until he had offered to return the fee to the News of the World and had received their waiver and permission to do what he liked with it. This very characteristic gentlemanliness and honesty typifies the traits that made those of us who met him absolutely convinced that there could be no hanky-panky about Mr Swanson: the provenance was absolutely certain as Mr Swanson was pretty sure his aunt had never even opened the book.
And then there's the handwriting. Now add to the time line the fact that the Home Office expert received not one but two pieces to compare with the marginalia. Paul Begg was as cautious as Grey Hunter and insisted on sending a phtocopy of the marginalia with a sample of DSS's handwriting for examination. I well remember being called to the telephone in the St Katharine's Dock Yacht Club one night to hear a shocked Paul tell me the marginalia were forged: the Home Office expert said there was not a single point of comparison between the two hands. Now I had seen a great deal of Swanson's handwriting both before and after his retirement, including marginalia in other books and the brief recollections he wrote in a notebook; I also have some post-graduate training in paleography (the deciphering of old hands) and considerable experience of deciphering much more difficult Victorian handwriting than Swanson's (notable Disraeli's scrawl and Dickens's varied fist). I have struggled with "crossed" letters where paper folded to make its own envelope has its message side overwritten at a perpendicular angle to give the space of two pages rather than one. I had no doubt whatsoever that the marginalia were in Swanson's hand, and the provenance was so good that my scholarly training told me this was genuine without a shadow of doubt. I confidently pronounced the Home Office expert absolutely wrong, much to Paul's distress and concern for my sense and sanity. But he looked carefully at the report he had received, and suddenly realized that he had mistakenly sent in a memorandum by some one else as the supposed example of Swanson's handwriting. When he corrected this he received the positive report from the Home Office, and, to echo the confident Inspector Abberline (retd) you may take my word for it, there isn't the remotest possibility that the Swanson marginalia are forged.
But Grey Hunter's basic question about their proper standing is perfectly sensible. After all, they are in themselves incorrect. They say two things about "Kosminsky" which are categorically not true of Aaron (though they apply to David Cohen): namely that he was taken into care with his hands tied behind his back, and that he died shortly after his incarceration. He also says two things about him which do apply to Aaron and could not possibly apply to Cohen - that his name was Kosminsky and at one time he lived at his brother's house in Whitechapel. This is what led me to assume confidently that I had been correct in postulating that Kosminsky and Cohen had somehow become confused in the minds of the police who knew about them.
Of course Grey Hunter is perfectly correct to say that, be he Kosminsky or Cohen, the Polish Jew conclusion was in effect only a theory: if it had been the assured conclusion of everyone in Scotland Yard we shouldn't have had Macnaghten and Basil Thompson in the next generation, and apparently Warren at the time, believing some version of the Druitt theory - (possibly even Druitt confused with Ostrog since the idea that he was a medic seems always to have been part of it). The amount of error and confusion in the senior Scotland Yard descriptions of the suspects (and remember the Macnaghten memoranda make errors of detail about every one of the suspects described) proves conclusively that there was no confirmed and agreed Scotland Yard conclusion that the Ripper had been positively identified. Anderson thought this, and Swanson may have agreed with him - (his notes don't say that he did). Anderson may or may not have believed that details about the Polish Jew that applied to two men were actually applying to one. But the reason for giving his conclusion priority rests entirely on a scholarly assessment of the validity of sources: was the source in a position to know what he was talking about? Does his character and personality as evinced in other writings and people's descriptions of him indicate that he would be reliable? Does his evidence conflict with any known facts? On all three counts, Anderson was clearly far and away the best contemporary source offering any theory available in 1987, which is why Paul Begg accepted him as the basis for fingering Kosminsky and I accepted him as the basis for fingering Cohen. Since 1987 the only other contemporary source to emerge who can be compared with him is Littlechild. Unfortunately Littlechild's life and memoirs don't tell us enough for us to be as sure of his reliability as we can be in Anderson's case, though I see no reason to imagine for one moment that he was saying anything he didn't believe to be true and know to reflect things thought by at least some other people at the time of the murders. What counts against his theory is the badness of Tumblety as a suspect.
When Charles Nevin was consulting me over the Swanson Marginalia,and we were both marvelling at Keith Skinner's skill in spotting the very difficult entry identifying Kosminsky's first treatment in a workhouse infirmary (which had eluded both of us when we individually scanned the creeds book in which it is to be found) he remarked to me that it was not surprising that David Cohen was the most plausible suspect ever proposed: Ripper theory is not known for its plausibility as a rule. Of course Tumblety as a suspect doesn't have the utter absurdity of PAV or Walter Sickert. But a flamboyant quack doctor with a high public profile and a good deal of status satisfaction in his life doesn't fit the psychological profiles of serial killers drawn up by experts as varied as Colin Wilson, Joel Norris and the FBI profilers. The crossover from homosexual molestation to heterosexual mutilating murder is even more extreme than the Chapman shift from ripping stray hookers to poisoning unwanted wives. And the suggestion that Tumblety was at liberty on an unrecorded police bail at the time of MJK's murder is as speculative as anything that has been proposed about any other suspect. Tumblety joins the queue of seriously possible suspects, but I think he's far from its head.
Nice to be back for a moment, though I don't anticipate revisiting the boards very frequently, alas. The teaching term start again tomorrow.
Martin Fido
________________________________________
Ally
16th January 2006, 05:23 PM
Howdy Martin,

Good to see you again, even if only briefly. Thanks for the additional details on the marginalia saga, it is appreciated.

One thing I have to say about claims of "fraud" or "forgery" or fakery in general, not just in this case is the tendency for people to say, as you did, that a person's lack of financial motive is reason to believe that they did not in fact do the "fraud". I have always found this to be a somewhat specious argument as money is not the ONLY reason to do something like this. For instance, if the marginalia was forged (not saying it was) I doubt money would have been the primary motive. Look at the recent scandal involving the South Korean researcher. While he received huged grants based on his work, I doubt that his motive for faking his data had as much to do with financial benefit as with being known as "The Pride of Korea". Acadameia is rife with such instances of people fudging or faking their data to get published, not because they expect to receive huge amounts of money really but because they want the pride of being the one who discovered something really important. Or possibly being able to claim their ancestor was someone who discovered something important.

Again good to see you again!

Best wishes,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:57 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

jdpegg
16th January 2006, 05:24 PM
Monty,

Not only is it important its crucial.

Jenni
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 06:00 PM
The 1987 Daily Telegraph article publishing the Swanson marginalia.

95
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 06:02 PM
Martin Fido's letter in response.

96
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 06:09 PM
First may I say how wonderful it is to see Martin Fido post here and may I wish him my very best and great to hear that he is about to start a new teaching term. It really is great to hear all these additional details from him as the full story of the marginalia has never been told which is what I am trying to establish here. This may sound like so much minutia to some but it really is important detail. Before anyone else rushes to premature conclusions about hoaxes or forgeries, I suggest they wait until the end of this essay. This is important basic Ripper history.
________________________________________
Natalie Severn
16th January 2006, 06:39 PM
Hi Martin,
Very Interesting material above.
I am unconvinced that Anderson, who didnt after all take an active part in the ripper investigation , was in charge of CID at the time, as well as being on holiday
during some of the murders, was THAT reliable a source.
He was deeply engaged in other matters of extreme seriousness over that whole Summer/ Autumn and beyond wasnt he?

When writing "The Lighter Side of my Official Life" maybe that was his precise mood."Light'?
Also maybe he believed it was required of him to be seen as"secretly knowing the identity of the ripper"?
Was he ,in fact,while writing "The Lighter Side.etc..."some few years later really taking a very serious, cold, hard, impartial look at the evidence,the facts of the case and all the issues pertaining to the hunt for the Whitechapel murderer?
Or was he at the time of writing, also being mindful of how posterity would judge him and his work?
This after all was a pretty spectacular" denouement" on his part and his view, as you say yourself,was not shared by everybody familiar with the case.
But had he not said anything about the case or hinted that he knew who the ripper was,might people simply have said----well here is another of the police chiefs around at that time who failed to catch the ripper!
In other words perhaps he felt it "required" of him to give the impression that" he knew "etc a sort of face saving tactic?


Put in this context , Swanson writing stuff in the margins of his revered masters signed autobiography might have simply meant, that it suddenly dawned on him, that Anderson must have "known" all along after all![and it may therefore have been a case of the wishful thinking of Anderson ,followed by wishful believing by Swanson....sort of "ahaah! Dear Old Anderson....so he knew all along and it WAS that Kosminski suspect after all!"- he then initials it because it is such an important moment of revelation to him!
Best Natalie
PS---Now.. David Cohen was much more like it!
________________________________________
Natalie Severn
16th January 2006, 06:52 PM
Dear Grey Hunter,
I do apologise for "rushing in"!
I did not see your last post until I had posted the above[which I still stand by].
However on seeing your reasoning outlined above,I agree,that in this instance it may be a more productive and valuable exercise to allow the issue to unfold in the way you outline.
Best
Natalie
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 06:57 PM
Martin is someone whose remarks must not go unaddressed so before continuing the 'saga' I shall make some comment on his post.

The reasons for Jim Swanson going public with his grandfather's marginalia are as I have given previously, they are contained in a handwritten letter to me. He made no mention of the attempt to sell the story in the News of the World although I was aware it is mentioned in the A-Z. It would be interesting to know the date that he did this. May I also say here that Jim Swanson was a very friendly and gracious gentleman.

As regards the examination of the handwriting I would like to make two points here. The first is that handwriting verification is a field for experts and involves their expert and informed opinion. Like many fields of expertise for every result you obtain you can often find another expert to disagree with the conclusion already obtained. The second point is that no handwriting expert would make a proper pronouncement unless he had examined original examples of the writing involved - photocopies or photographs are simply unacceptable for proper analysis as density of ink, pressure on the page/indentation and other factors come into it. The letter from the document examiner has never been published but should contain his full analysis and reasons for his conclusions.

This is not a battle of theories either, I want this to be totally objective. In the forty-five years I have been studying the Ripper case I have only ever wanted to know the truth. I too have been through the gamut of suspects and all I know for sure is that there is no hard evidence against any of them. But in 1965 I reached the conclusion that the Macnaghten listed suspects, as they originated from an official source must be the strongest clue. And Druitt was my choice. For the totally objective historian surely must only want the truth if it is possible to obtain it. I must state here that Fido and Begg's work at the time of the centenary swayed me and I dropped Druitt and then preferred Kosminski.

However, with increased knowledge comes increased uncertainty. There were things that unsettled me and niggled at my mind over the Polish Jew theorising. For a start I was a little troubled by some of the pro-Anderson and Kosminki theorists setting too much store in what was, after all, just another theory. Also there appeared to be too many assumptions being made without evidence to support them. In the real world an Assistant Commissioner does not get involved in the practical side of identifications. Swanson, if his words were correct, had written as if even he had not attended the identification. He said "where he had been sent by us", when, surely if Swanson had have been involved he would have written "where we took him". The idea of a Whitechapel address being watched by the 'City CID' did not seem right (and I know all the explanations that have been conjured up in an effort to address this), "In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse..." is simply ungrammatical, all conspired to raise questions in my mind. But not least of all was the totally improper identification described at the most unlikely of locations - 'the Seaside Home.' And we have statements of 'fact' made by the Anderson based theorists such as Anderson investigated Kosminski - this is not a fact, it's an assumption. They also assume that there was an identification at Hove - again this is an assumption and not a fact. Probably the most ridiculous statement I've heard is that Swanson and Anderson acting in concert did all this without the rest of the Yard hierarchy knowing.

More to follow...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-18-2008, 03:58 AM
Ash Ash is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 110
Default

Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 07:16 PM
At this point in the proceedings I have an explanation to make. The whole marginalia question has been a bit of a bugbear with me for many years. The main problem being the uncertainty about it. I know that others must feel the same, but in the past there has been almost a fear to raise questions about it. It has always been assumed to be beyond question - even sacrosanct. But at the end of the day they are pencilled notes written in a book published in 1910 - but of huge significance in Ripper research and as they cannot be ignored they have to be addressed. I simply have to get all of this off my chest and, in fairness to all others interested in the case, make all I know available to them. I do not want to influence the conclusions they reach but I must try to be as complete as possible with the detail.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 07:44 PM
Donald Swanson letter to Anderson (from my collection).

104
________________________________________
Ally
16th January 2006, 08:03 PM
Grey,

I am willing to wait until you are done with your summarization but I was hoping you (or Martin) could provide me with a bit of clarification. Do we know what parts of the text the document examiner used to prove it was the correct handwriting? As it seems it is the initials and the Kosminski line that are in question, do we know if they looked at that bit specifically or just looked at one of the larger passages?
________________________________________
suzi
16th January 2006, 08:04 PM
Hi all-
That could well be seen as a different hand,as I posted somewhere else (but am still trying to find it.!).the copperplate hand was well taught, nay drummed into the young at the time ,so 'distinctive' handwriting was far more difficult to distinguish.

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
16th January 2006, 08:16 PM
Right!!!!!!!- have finally found my Copperplate rant its on the Francis Thompson thread

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
16th January 2006, 08:26 PM
Hi
Right as Ive no doubt said before but CANT FIND THEM!!!!!!! see my ref on the Thompson thread re Copperplate and the problems therein

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
16th January 2006, 08:40 PM
GH (Grey Hunter)

Post the letter would be interesting for purposes of comparison

Suzi
________________________________________
rjpalmer
16th January 2006, 09:39 PM
Gray Hunter - I appreciate you bringing this again into the public forum and your generosity in dowloading the key documents. I agree that the Marginalia contains a number of oddities, and also agree with your point that the orginals must be used when attempting to 'authenticate' a document.

However, to play the devil's advocate for the moment, let me pose a couple of questions. Granting that the Marginalia was published after Fido's book and the subsequent reviews, was there really enough information presented by Fido to have allowed a theoretical forger to have written the main body of the end-note? In other words, the end note refers to the suspect having a 'brother' in Whitechapel. While the identification of Woolf/Woolfe Kosminski remains problematic, the admission papers do refer to a 'brother' as does the Marginalia; if Fido didn't mention this specifically, it seems like this would necessitate any theoretical forger to have accessed the Workhouse records in question, in which case he would have left a trail.

The last phrase 'Kosminski was the suspect' is odd; on the otherhand, don't we have to allow that the main body of the notes seemingly refer to Aaron Kosminski anyway? The link between MM's Kosminski and Anderson's suspect is speculative--I agree with that-- but we are still faced with the fact that the only Kosminski found in asylum records does 'fit' the oddities of the Swanson marginalia ---ie., committed after the founding of the Seaside Home, relatives in Whitechapel, admission papers referring to a 'brother.' This, it seems to me, mitigates against a forgery, as does the fact that Ms. Gurney of the Seaside Home was a personal friend of Anderson...which must be a very obscure fact.

This isn't meant to undermine your very apt observations; but looked at strictly rationally, there does appear to be some strong points in favor of the Marginalia being genuine--as well as some peculiarities (as you point out). Comments welcome. Best wishes, RP
________________________________________
Glenn L Andersson
16th January 2006, 09:45 PM
This is really great stuff.

Who would have thought that the Casebook Boards would come alive again - as I believe, in the old days - with such vital information and interesting discussions, thanks to some very important posters here. Thanks to Grey Hunter for this and for all the efforts here.

And indeed - very enjoyable to see Martin Fido here again. He managed to disappear by the time I became a member on the old boards. Even if the comeback is temporary (which I hope it isn't), the stuff we get from people like this is invaluable.
________________________________________
apwolf
16th January 2006, 10:30 PM
RP
Didn't we establish a long time ago that the Seaside Home was established some years before we thought it was?
I thought we were looking at three different Seaside Homes that had been established for vexed officers of the Met. force in the Brighton and Hove area during the LVP?
This is also detail.
________________________________________
Grey Hunter
16th January 2006, 10:54 PM
I appreciate that there are many questions to be answered and I again must stress that this thread has not been embarked upon to prove a hoax or a forgery. It has been my sole intention to place all the known facts before everyone, whether or not they militate against one view or another, for a fair assessment to be made. The authenticity, or status, of the marginalia is crucial to much serious Ripper theorising and I have no bias either way. If it is totally genuine great, and I am well aware of the points that RJ has raised in relation to it - obviously as I have studied this in depth. As far as the important points raised by Ally go, all I can say is I have never read any detail about how the Home Office expert came to his conclusion, only what has been stated here. His letter, which I believe is owned by Paul Begg, has never been published.

I am happy to answer any question to the best of my ability, but please can we leave that until I have finished the essay.
________________________________________
Natalie Severn
16th January 2006, 10:59 PM
Fishy business this Ap.Fishy business!
I indeed remember several such postings that you made about the seaside homes.But then I honestly must admit I have never been very impressed by any of these stories of of a Jewish suspect brought from a lunatic asylum to be seen there by a Jewish witness who recognised him but refused to go further.....and all this taking place in a policeman"s rest home in Hove.
I can understand when I read certain references to Sir Robert"s thinking on the ripper, why he at one time greatly upset Sir Winston Churchill who on a very different matter apparently chuckled with a reporter about"Anderson"s Fairy Tales".
Natalie
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.