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:
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Varqm 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (91 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (31 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (19 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (1 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
  #31  
Old 03-11-2009, 02:53 AM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
It was then, in 1981, that he sold the rights to a story on the annotations to The News of the World. In the event that newspaper did not use the story.
In that case, I was obviously wide of the mark with my speculations about the News of the World's change of editors in 1987, based on Martin Fido's statement that "Shortly after that N o W changed owners or editor, and the new regime didn't use the material".

According to online sources, there was also a change of editors in 1981, when Derek Jameson ("Do They Mean Us?") took over from Barry Askew.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-11-2009, 08:16 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,913
Default

To my untrained eye,the signatures do not appear dissimular.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-11-2009, 09:15 AM
Stewart P Evans Stewart P Evans is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,994
Default The 'Marginalia'

Whilst I do accept the grounds for discussing fakery, and that such a thing is possible I would just like to re-state my position.

The idea that the 'marginalia' might not be genuine was raised in 1991 by author Paul Harrison in his book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved. As far as I know there was no evidence to support him stating that. He stated [inter alia] "The marginalia are allegedly in the hand of Swanson..." and "I feel suspicious about the authenticity of the notes and their accuracy."

The first edition of The Jack the Ripper A to Z came out the same year and the authors rejected Harrison's suggestion with "Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond peradventure, and the writing has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

This final statement appears to have ended any speculation about the authenticity of the annotations and no published claims of fakery, as far as I know, appeared after this. This may be unfortunate as at that time the book was still easily accessible for those interested as Jim Swanson was still alive and available for comment.

As far as I know Keith and I were the next two Ripper students to see the book which we did in July 2000, during the final stages of finishing the Ultimate Sourcebook (Companion), at Jim Swanson's home near Guildford. The main object of the visit was to obtain photographs of the annotations, two of which appeared in our book which came out a short while afterwards.

In view of Harrison's remarks about the 'marginalia' and a couple of views that had been privately made to me I have to admit that the differences apparent in the marginalia/endpaper notes struck me rather forcibly and caused a little unease. But there certainly did not seem enough to start making allegations of fakery.

When I finally disclosed the differences in the pencils/handwriting in the book on these boards just after Jim Swanson passed away I made no reference to thinking that the annotations might have been faked, in part or whole. This was the conclusion voiced by others and Martin Fido appeared on the boards in an outraged manner. My position remains the same, and if I had to bet big money on it I should have to say that I would bet on the notes being genuine, despite the anomalies.

This is why I have stated that the problems should have been spotted and addressed back in 1988 - they were not and we now have the current arguments being aired and Jim Swanson is not available for comment.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

Last edited by Stewart P Evans : 03-11-2009 at 09:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-11-2009, 12:35 PM
Bob Hinton Bob Hinton is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 654
Default Writing comparison

Ive just found this thread. Interesting. It is my opinion that the upper of these three signatures is a genuine one and the lower two are attempts at copying the original one.

The top one has a flow that comes from years of doing the same thing, but the bottom two are hesitant and erratic. Look at the clean sweep joining the D and the S in the top signature and the hesitant line doing the same thing in the bottom two.

The line joining the two capital Ss in the top example is not the same as the erratic line in the bottom two.

Writing in pencil wouldnt cause these differences.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-11-2009, 12:46 PM
Nothing to see Nothing to see is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 338
Default

Sorry, I've even got my glasses on and I can't see any difference. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist but damned if I can see it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-11-2009, 12:50 PM
sushka sushka is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Default

So what would help get some additional clarity here? Certainty seems unlikely?

Who would have access to reports produced by the two analysts?

How could a new expert be given access to the book in the museum?

Could our A-Z authors comment?

Sushka
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-11-2009, 04:28 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans View Post

When I finally disclosed the differences in the pencils/handwriting in the book on these boards just after Jim Swanson passed away I made no reference to thinking that the annotations might have been faked, in part or whole....

This is why I have stated that the problems should have been spotted and addressed back in 1988 - they were not and we now have the current arguments being aired and Jim Swanson is not available for comment.
Hi Stewart,

But of course it must be pointed out that as you also waited until Jim Swanson passed away before airing the differences in public, you have also played a role in ensuring that there are no questions able to be asked when Jim Swanson WAS available for comment.

So yes, the optimum time was in 1988, but there was a window of opportunity when Jim Swanson was available, the marginalia was still in private ownership when it could have been examined and thoroughly vetted and you passed on it as well.

And now we are left with questions that we will never have any hope of resolving.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Victor Victor is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Jack View Post
I disagree, Natalie, I think cd has hit it right on the button here.
I just spent fifteen minutes looking at all my hundreds of marginalia in Stewart's sourcebook, and I never initialled or signed one entry.
Why should I?
Why should he?
AP, how many of the pages of "Stewart's sourcebook" concern events you were involved in (albeit sometimes peripherally)?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-11-2009, 05:20 PM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

I can understand the dilemma that those associated with this book would have found themselves in. It wasn't an anonymous affair, like finding the book on a skip. There was a personal element involved, and unlike family oral tradition, where there is a polite "someone's memory may be at fault" option, the choices were starker and
there would have been a reluctance to say anything that might be taken to imply an accusation of trickery. An embarrassing situation.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Tom_Wescott Tom_Wescott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
In his Ripperologist article, Paul Begg refers to an annotation in Swanson's copy of Adam Worth, alias 'Little Adam', by William Pinkerton, which he initialled.
Thanks for that, Chris. Then I suppose we can relieve this little detail of any suspicious leanings.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
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 06:04 PM.


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