The Swanson Marginalia Is Genuine Reasoning....

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Howard

I don’t wish to get bogged down on the authenticity of the marginalia. It is Anderson that is my primary interest.

However I think everyone is missing an extremely important point.

I did NOT say the marginalia was 99% genuine. I said it was 99.9% genuine and there is an important difference.

The FACT is that handwriting analysis is not an exact science. What a handwriting expert gives is his qualified, expert, professional, opinion.

However he can never be 100% certain because all he is providing is opinion not a science.

So any expert studying any letter can only ever give a qualified opinion that it was probably written by Mr X. 99.9%

So if we send the ‘Littlechilde’ letter to a hand writing expert the best opinion he can give is that it is PROBABLY written by Littlechilde. Even if he say’s its 100% he’s wrong. Because handwriting analysis is NOT a science.

In the reasoning, it’s the same thing that our expert can say about any of the Ripper related documents or photographs. It was probably written by Dr Bond. 99.9% sure.

The photograph of Annie Chapman is Probably of Annie Chapman.

What Dr Davis pointed out was that there were small differences in the handwriting and colour of the end notes. Probably caused by age.

‘The writing is probably Swanson’s’.

That’s all he could say because that s what his craft/skills/professional opinion, allows.

Totty was more emphatic but he was never able to actually say that it was 100% genuine as handwriting is not an exact science. He only ever could or should have said 99.9%.

Again my predicament is that if I say that the Marginalia is probably genuine, then I must be consistent and say this about every Ripper document and photograph.

WHICH I AM NOT PROPARED TO DO. Why be selective about the Marginalia?

It is not consistent and implies that it is different from other documents that have only as good provenance and handwriting examination.

The Marginalia is Genuine.

Jeff

[Monty]

Erm....the Littlechild letter is typed Jeff. A handwriting expert wouldnt have been of much use.

Correctly me if Im wrong but wasnt the first analysis of the marginalia more negative than positive? And the first person to counter that belief was Martin Fido, after a call by Paul Begg.

Just trying to establish the facts.

Monty
:)

[Sam Flynn]

Erm....the Littlechild letter is typed Jeff.
Arse! And there I was thinking that Littlechild had the neatest hand I'd ever seen...

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Whether typed or printed. The possibility of forgery remains on any historical document or photgraph for that matter.

My reasoning is fairly simple no document can be assumed to be 100% genuine as there are always out there scarario’s which allow for there forgery.

All we are ever dealing with are probabilities and percentages.

Jeff

PS And yes you are correct Monty, Paul Begg apparently sent the wrong sample of Swanson’s handwriting to Totty the first time. Totty correctly stated that it was Not a match.

[Paul]

Erm....the Littlechild letter is typed Jeff. A handwriting expert wouldnt have been of much use.

Correctly me if Im wrong but wasnt the first analysis of the marginalia more negative than positive? And the first person to counter that belief was Martin Fido, after a call by Paul Begg.

Just trying to establish the facts.

Monty
:)

Hi Monty,
Since my name is being bandied about here, could you explain what you mean?

[Monty]

Which sample did he send?

Was it Swansons?

Any percentage of reasonable doubt is doubt nonetheless.

Monty
:)

[Monty]

Sorry, our posts crossed and I missed yours, apologies.

Yes, I'll explain. I listened to The Scribes podcast the other night, excellent by the way. Martin stated clearly the marginalia is quite genuine and refused to comment any further on that issue. He did however state his reasoning was on the internet.

Ignorant of this I requested if anyone knew where I could find it on Casebook and Stewart informed me it was in the Casebook archives. Which it is.

Reading Martins post he states that he received a call from you telling him the results of the analysis, which were not positive. He went on to say that he refured the findings and explained his views as to why.

I am merely trying to clarify this, or establish if this is not the case.

Cheers
Monty
:)

[Jeff Leahy]

Monty you are missing the point almost all historic documents carry a percentage of reasonable doubt, all be it that that doubt is very very small. Or beyond belief.

Having given it some thought surely a typed letter would be far easier to forge than a written marginalia.

Much like the Maybrick Diary all you require is some orginal paper, an original typewriter and some link, hard to test.

You bash out the copy and only have to forge the signature.

All documents have an element of doubt. If you preface the marginalia with ‘probably’ you must also do so for all documents, including the Littlechild ‘ letter which is apparently, suspiciously typed?

Jeff

PS Just to add to that forging a complete document is highly improbable it takes lots of work. However tempering with already old documents is relatively easy. I believe Jenny Pegg spotted an example a couple of years ago.

How many ripper documents have been checked for that?

I presume practically or possibly none.

Jeff

PS PS Hi Paul , how are the dogs?

[Howard Brown]

Dear Jeff:

I did NOT say the marginalia was 99% genuine. I said it was 99.9% genuine and there is an important difference.

Either my hands or wet or they ain't Jeff.... saying "a lot" or "substantially" is the same. Please explain the sentence above to me.
***************************

The FACT is that handwriting analysis is not an exact science. What a handwriting expert gives is his qualified, expert, professional, opinion.

However he can never be 100% certain because all he is providing is opinion not a science.

Um, I believe that this is the point that Mr. Evans alludes to elsewhere...something along this line.
****************************


Jeff...I'm not arguing with you for some reason other to find out why you find it unnecessary to discuss the possibility that the SM is not what it seems.

It is very important in the scheme of things in that it "supports" Anderson's version of events at the identification.

Chapman's marriage photo is a most welcome and valuable artifact among the material accumulated on the Case, but a less valuable artifact than the Marginalia in terms of evidence.

With that in mind, assuming that you get my drift, do you understand why the SM should be scrutinized more than her photo?

Again....I agree with you that it is probably genuine...However, the arguments provided by SPE cannot be overlooked or underestimated (To use just one member of the community as an example and not to try and drag him into the mix...) and they need to be discussed openly without dragging in other bits of data or material to compare the authenticity of the Marginalia to them.

[Monty]

The Littlechild letter was put through its scrutiny at a fairly early stage. Its provenance is excellent.

It was found amongst a batch of letters belonging to Simms and was under the ownership of a collector with excellent repute.

The rest of your post seems to be contradictory...I'd best leave you to counter yourself.

Monty
:)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Howard

You are not thinking logically. The importance of a document is irrelevant when considering its authenticity. It is either genuine or it is not.

The importance attached to it is a completely different thing.

What we are dealing with is probability. And all documents or photographs have a probability of not being what someone claims it to be.

In some cases that probability is huge, almost zero.

While some documents, like the Maybrick Diary are the other end of that probability almost certainly Fake.

But what we have in all documents and photographs is a PROBABILITY.

So I say again if logic dictates that you prefix the Marginalia with the word ‘PROBABLY’

Then you must do so for all documents.

That would be illogical. BUT we do not because its obvious.

The simplest and clearest thing to say ‘Is then Marginalia is GENUINE’

And unless anyone can prove beyond doubt that it is not, it remains as genuine as any other document of its kind.

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The Littlechild letter was put through its scrutiny at a fairly early stage. Its provenance is excellent.

Much like the Marginalia then?

It was found amongst a batch of letters belonging to Simms and was under the ownership of a collector with excellent repute.

Then therre is a hint of profit from a collector? Sounds to me like Not as good as the marginalia.

The rest of your post seems to be contradictory...I'd best leave you to counter yourself.

Monty
:)

What is contradictory about stating that an element of doubt exists in all documents and photographs. Surely that is logical?

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

What I’m clearly not trying to argue is that either the Littlechild letter or the Marginalia are HOAX.

What I’m saying is that if we compare the provenance of the Swanson Marginalia with the provenance of the Littlechild letter.

Then the marginalia has the better of the two provenances?

Anyone disagree?

Jeff

PS. As a matter of point I think if you refered to Dr Davis report specifically, then you would be required to prefix the 'Probably' word because that is what he said. However in general, unless anyone can provide a reason NOT to, I will from now on in all posts refer to the Marginalia as GENUINE...unless you know other wise...

[Howard Brown]

You are not thinking logically. The importance of a document is irrelevant when considering its authenticity. It is either genuine or it is not.--Jeff


..Let me rephrase that to say that despite the item you mentioned ( Chapman's photo) and the Marginalia both being Case related documents or artifacts...the importance/significance of the SM is more important in the scheme of things and that the probability factor which you yourself mention as being probable....does not cut the mustard. It is still left open to scrutiny...and to as much scrutiny as anyone sees fit, Jeff. It is after all part of the basis for the support of the Anderson version of events. If you or I dispute the Chapman photo's authenticity...who shivs a git?

Therefore, despite the odds being that it is what it is reported to be....the possibility exists that it may not be and for that fact alone, bringing in issues of all documents or articles where the same rules apply do not mean much when we are focusing squarely on the issue of the SM. We should keep the matter restricted to discussing this issue...and in doing so, with all due respect to the fact that it is or might be necessary to gauge the definitiveness of any item....all items if one wishes...the fact remains that this is not on a par with the Chapman photo or whether the GSG ,as an example, is legitimate in the scheme of things. The probability factor on this issue is vastly more important than a handwriting sample of Michael Kidney for example and its probability.

The disparity in the pencilling alone makes me think, even as someone with no agenda to maintain and who again agrees that it is probably legit, that it is worth scrutinizing and that its not etched in stone as a definite fact.


The importance attached to it is a completely different thing.

What we are dealing with is probability. And all documents or photographs have a probability of not being what someone claims it to be.

This is not necessarily true,Jeff. A photo of me is a photo of me.
.
You and I can crow until the cows come home that its a slam dunk...99.9 percent legit..and probably a definite fact Jeff...but that should not prevent this important aspect of the Anderson Identification at all from being scrutinized and left to speculation. Thats what I meant.

[Monty]

The collector was retiring, closing down his business and was getting rid of his stock. He really made minimal amount and Id rather leave it at that as it is a private matter.
Besides, there was an original attempt to get the marginalia published, no doubt for profit also. And I see nothing wrong with that.

The marginalia, as with the diary, as with the Littlechild letter, is relied upon to support theories and subsequently publications. The profit suggestion can be attributed to most documents....some more than others.

Monty
:)

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

True or false, pardner....The LL was examined and was deemed legitimate without equivocation....correct?

The Marginalia can only be assessed as almost being utterly verifiable, correct ?

One inch or one mile...there's still a difference present between the two documents.

Its that difference that makes it worth keeping this issue afloat...whether I agree with you, which I to do until something surfaces to prove otherwise entirely...or disagree with your methods of accepting with little difference between 100 percent and 99.9 fact.

I wrote this post Jeff...it is therefore a document. No one else did.

Using your arguments from before ,thats not a definitely ascertainable fact.

There are ways of determining the provenance to things....its just that the SM has a possibility that you seem to feel is not worth keeping afloat that is puzzling.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Much like the Marginalia then?

Then therre is a hint of profit from a collector? Sounds to me like Not as good as the marginalia.



The Swanson Marginalia and the Littlechild Letter are being used as proxies for various agendas.

This thread is heading down a dark road. I would proceed with caution.

If you want to discuss the Swanson Marginalia on its own, fine. Ditto Littlechild. But when they are discussed together, we know what you're getting at, and it's not a place you want to go.

[Howard Brown]

Exactly Sir Bob...and I should have stressed that as well. Good call.

There is no need to mention other articles such as Mrs. Chapman's photo or the 5 line scribbling by Warren to the HO in November....as examples.

Lets stick to the one issue, as I previously mentioned, since Jeff initiated the thread on this specific issue and no other.

We run the risk of expanding into other areas of Case data with no bearing on the issue at all....

Thank you.

We monitor these boards Jeff. We try to stick to the premise.

[Sam Flynn]

I think there's a danger of confusing the probability of the marginalia being genuine with one's confidence level in their being genuine. One might be 99% confident as to their authenticity, which is fine, but that's an entirely personal value judgment.

Whilst it's perfectly legitimate to say "I'm X% certain that they're genuine", nobody can yet say that "They are X% genuine". The marginalia in themselves are either authentic or they're not - in other words, it's a case of black and white... not 99% grey.

Another semantic argument, perhaps, but I'm only pointing it out because it might help keep the debate on an even keel. At least, I'm 51% confident that it will :)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert

Yes there was originally a tongue in cheek reference but when Monty picked it up it occurred to me that there were some interesting comparisons, in as far as both documents were not in the public domain, they appeared and both were principally identified as ‘authentic’ largely due to provenance.

However your request seems more than reasonable, so if you might give me a little time I will try and think of other examples that are equally valid.

As the point I am trying to make is not specific to any particular document. Not even the Marginalia. Its about documents in general.

Thank you all for your patience, trusting you also have a chilled evening

Jeff

PS It has occurred to me why the sites are very different. Casebook reads top to bottom and jtrforums read bottom up. Its probably obvious to you guys but it really used to through me.

PS PS I agree with Sam. The problem as I stress, is that handwriting analysis is not a science but Expert opinion. You don't get a call that it, is, or is not. You get a call that it is probably 'Real' or 'fake'

I again reference Dr Davis 'probably Swansons'

[admin tim]

It has occurred to me why the sites are very different. Casebook reads top to bottom and jtrforums read bottom up.

You can change the order of display in your User Control Panel (User CP), visible at the top left of the menubar.

Howard is so used to saying/hearing 'bottoms up' that that arrangement is our default setting.

[Monty]

Can Admin please clarify, we cannot compare documents, nor discuss other documents on a particular document thread?

Is this a case of punishing the class cos of the naughty kid?

Monty
:)

[SirRobertAnderson]

Can Admin please clarify, we cannot compare documents, nor discuss other documents on a particular document thread?

We're saying not to use particular documents as proxies for other arguments.

Does anyone doubt what is really being said when a sideswipe at the Littlechild letter is launched during a discussion of the Marginalia ? Or vice versa ?

[Monty]

Ok, I understand.

Many thanks for clarifying.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert

Can I just clarify. While I understand that you would prefer me not to use the Littlechild letter, which I have agreed not to do. Are you saying that I can NOT draw comparisons with say the Casement letters, the Bond report or say the Chapman photograph?

Drawing a parallel between other letters photographs and manuscripts of similar provenance and analysis scenario’s, is pretty central to my theme?

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jeff,Drawing a parallel between other letters photographs and manuscripts of similar provenance and analysis scenario’s, is pretty central to my theme?
If one must draw parallels, it's as well that we note the circumstances under which these documents first came to light, as well as their impact their genuineness (or otherwise) would have on altering our views on the Ripper case. On that basis neither the Chapman photograph, the Bond report nor the Casement letters are of any relevance to the discussion.

The degree to which the artefact in question purports to be authoritative should also be considered, in which case it could be argued strongly that the Littlechild letter is irrelevant - simply because all it ostensibly did was to tentatively offer up a "likely" suspect, which is hardly earth-shattering. Furthermore, Littlechild was not directly connected to the Ripper inquiry so, as far as potential "forgeries" go, the Littlechild Letter doesn't strike one as particularly ambitious.

That pretty much leaves the Swanson Marginalia on their own, and it's perfectly legitimate to question or defend them on their own merits - which is as it should be. Discussion of other artefacts can't possibly add anything to the debate, as the mere existence of forgeries elsewhere doesn't in the least impact the likelihood of the marginalia being genuine or not.

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

What we would like to see or rather I prefer on seeing is the focus be on the Marginalia without the inclusion of other documents because the thread will sadly derail as they always seem to do into circular arguments based on agenda without any progress being made....and I do sense a reason for a certain document being mentioned here for comparitive reasons, so lets cut to the chase and leave the others out.... and finally I wouldn't want the thread to become more a matter of comparing one document's provenance to another's when thats not the issue here.

There are alternatives to that sort of thing.....and I will set one up right now...under the heading of " The Provenance of Documents" in the Letters From Hell Forum. Consider yourself the source for that perspiration, Jeff.

While I agree that its within bounds to query about the provenance of documents or letters....which is why there is significant division of opinion over the validity of letters sent to the Police in 1888 and in other areas as well....to bring up one document up to compare it to another missive at hand in this instance seems agenda based not only to me but the other moderators as well,Jeff.

Capece,paisano ?

[Howard Brown]

P.S.

Thanks Sam...I was busy writing my post and overlooked your sensible suggestion. Thats "it" in a nutshell.

[Paul]

Sorry, our posts crossed and I missed yours, apologies.

Yes, I'll explain. I listened to The Scribes podcast the other night, excellent by the way. Martin stated clearly the marginalia is quite genuine and refused to comment any further on that issue. He did however state his reasoning was on the internet.

Ignorant of this I requested if anyone knew where I could find it on Casebook and Stewart informed me it was in the Casebook archives. Which it is.

Reading Martins post he states that he received a call from you telling him the results of the analysis, which were not positive. He went on to say that he refured the findings and explained his views as to why.

I am merely trying to clarify this, or establish if this is not the case.

Cheers
Monty
:)

Thanks, Monty. Yes, I'd supplied some photocopies of documents written, as I believed, by Swanson, but which in fact turned out not to have been (they were written by a secretary and signed by Swanson), and the reply came back that Swanson had not written the marginalia. I telephoned Martin who had just finished doing a walking tour and told him that the analysis showed the marginalia wasn't genuine. He, however, was so sure that the provenance was solid that he pooh poohed the idea. On inquiry my (quite reasonable) mistake was discovered and the analysis came back that the marginalia was genuine. All a very small storm in a very small teacup.

[Stephen Leece]

This is what I've been driving at- mentality of the fan base. I referred to 'both Popes' the other day; there's a flipside though embodied by Jeff. Question everything the Pope says whether justified or not.
Jeff believe me, a forgery courtesy of a type-writer is easier to detect than a pen to paper forgery. It's arguably more scientific, because you can take into account the machine, the ribbon, the cleanliness of the keys etc. all of which can provide a comparison with a document produced under controlled conditions. Abandon this notion that the Littlechild letter is in some way dodgy, and abandon the notion that the Swanson marginalia is in some way iffy.
Just because Mr. Evans has grave doubts about the Maybrick Diary (and even I must concede I can see his viewpoint, even though I think his thinking is skewed) that does not justify these documents to be subjected to the same obtuse levels of scrutiny.
There's a huge difference in provenance between the Maybrick Diary and the Littlechild letter. I hope you will at least admit that.
Don't fall into post-modern attitudes of 'everything is open to doubt and we can never be sure of anything.' If that's your attitude, put on a bandana, smoke some weed and go 'discover yourself' via gurus, yoga and sacred oils from India. This question everything attitude to ludicrous extremes is no different form the deliberately annoying child that says, "Why?" to everything.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Yes, I'd supplied some photocopies of documents written, as I believed, by Swanson, but which in fact turned out not to have been (they were written by a secretary and signed by Swanson), and the reply came back that Swanson had not written the marginalia.

I had no idea that this was the heart of the problem; it's been so distorted on the Net that more than a few people should be ashamed of themselves. I suppose if you tell a lie often enough it becomes truth in Ripperdom.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Don't fall into post-modern attitudes of 'everything is open to doubt and we can never be sure of anything.' ....This question everything attitude to ludicrous extremes is no different form the deliberately annoying child that says, "Why?" to everything.

This is precisely why we go backwards each year; we discard victims (C5 down to C3) and evidence (GSG) as if they were fashion trends. Little wonder we had a book out this year that said it was all a newspaper's invention.

[Stephen Leece]

Bob I read that thing this afternoon in one sitting- I have consumed 8 pints of McEwans, one bottle of white and half a bottle of red; and I still can't work out what Cook was upto there- I cannot emphasise enough how brilliant his work was on Sidney Reilly and the early years of MI-5. I cannot reconcile those books with his Ripper book at all. I don't understand how someone so brilliant in one specific area, can be so bad in another. It's also particularly embarrassing in the light of what I've been whinging about the past three or four days.

[Paul]

..Let me rephrase that to say that despite the item you mentioned ( Chapman's photo) and the Marginalia both being Case related documents or artifacts...the importance/significance of the SM is more important in the scheme of things and that the probability factor which you yourself mention as being probable....does not cut the mustard. It is still left open to scrutiny...and to as much scrutiny as anyone sees fit, Jeff. It is after all part of the basis for the support of the Anderson version of events. If you or I dispute the Chapman photo's authenticity...who shivs a git?

Howard,
The point is not that one item is historically more important than another, but that the process of authentication in both cases is basically the same.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I cannot emphasise enough how brilliant his work was on Sidney Reilly and the early years of MI-5. I cannot reconcile those books with his Ripper book at all. I don't understand how someone so brilliant in one specific area, can be so bad in another.

I have his M-5 book. It is very very good indeed.

[Paul]

This is what I've been driving at- mentality of the fan base. I referred to 'both Popes' the other day; there's a flipside though embodied by Jeff. Question everything the Pope says whether justified or not.
Jeff believe me, a forgery courtesy of a type-writer is easier to detect than a pen to paper forgery. It's arguably more scientific, because you can take into account the machine, the ribbon, the cleanliness of the keys etc. all of which can provide a comparison with a document produced under controlled conditions. Abandon this notion that the Littlechild letter is in some way dodgy, and abandon the notion that the Swanson marginalia is in some way iffy.
Just because Mr. Evans has grave doubts about the Maybrick Diary (and even I must concede I can see his viewpoint, even though I think his thinking is skewed) that does not justify these documents to be subjected to the same obtuse levels of scrutiny.
There's a huge difference in provenance between the Maybrick Diary and the Littlechild letter. I hope you will at least admit that.
Don't fall into post-modern attitudes of 'everything is open to doubt and we can never be sure of anything.' If that's your attitude, put on a bandana, smoke some weed and go 'discover yourself' via gurus, yoga and sacred oils from India. This question everything attitude to ludicrous extremes is no different form the deliberately annoying child that says, "Why?" to everything.

And may all hail and bow to that! It has been neatly summed up as 'excessive scepticism is as bad as blind acceptance'.

[Monty]

Thanks, Monty. Yes, I'd supplied some photocopies of documents written, as I believed, by Swanson, but which in fact turned out not to have been (they were written by a secretary and signed by Swanson), and the reply came back that Swanson had not written the marginalia. I telephoned Martin who had just finished doing a walking tour and told him that the analysis showed the marginalia wasn't genuine. He, however, was so sure that the provenance was solid that he pooh poohed the idea. On inquiry my (quite reasonable) mistake was discovered and the analysis came back that the marginalia was genuine. All a very small storm in a very small teacup.

Paul,

Many thanks for making it clearer.

Monty
:)

[Jeff Leahy]

Ok, I’m therefore going to take some wild leaps of faith and see if anyone can understand my reasoning. And It’s from one of Sam’s posts that I wish to start.

The Marginalia is either Genuine or it is NOT. Sam has claimed that it is our perception of it that we are actually discussing. Whether we think it quite likely to be genuine, very likely, almost definitely….ie a percentage of odds.

However whether we choose to believe one percentage or another it is actually still just either Fake or Genuine.

Although there is another possibility that parts of it are genuine while parts of it are not. This Scenario is highly unlikely because it has been examined by Dr Davis who has confirmed that the writing in the first section was written by one person and the writing in the end notes was written by one person.

I.e. There is NO suggestion that either section has been tampered or altered. (As in the Dr Jack/ Jennifer Pegg forgery senario or famous forgeries like the Vinland map) both sections were written by the same person, slight variations being possibly explained by the two having been written at different times.

However we also know that handwriting examination is NOT an exact science. It is qualified opinion. If we have a finger print we are clearly able to find an expert who can give a qualified opinion of an exact match as peoples finger pints do not change they are always the same and we can be 100% sure that we have the same man (Although I’m certain that I’ve heard somewhere that fingerprint identification have bought miss carriages of justice) And DNA evidence is the same thing, if we have a sample of DNA we can be pretty sure of an exact match.

However even when considering DNA there are ‘outtthere’ scenarios that mistakes might be made, slight differences that might leave minute percentages of doubt in ones mind. I was reminded that I watched an episode of Waking the Dead on BBC1 this week the central plot was that BIOD (the detective) had DNA matches in 1969 and 2009 both connected to different murders and was try to find a link. However there simply was NO link. The improbable plot line explored the ‘outthere’ scenario that two identical twins had been separated at birth by nuns and no one not even the sisters new. Both were involved in separate unconnecting murders both linked by a priest who just also happened to turn up at both murders but didn’t know there were two sisters…..completely and totally improbable but never the less a possibility?

So what I’m saying is that in our fantasizing and creative minds we can imagine all sought of improbable scenarios that create minute elements of doubt in almost every case or mystery. A document is still either just Fake or GENUINE but our perception is a percentage of belief in it being Fake or GENUINE.

Lets move on to why I believe we can compare letters and photographs, the Maybrick Diary, the salamander letter, the Casement Diary, the Abberline Diary, the Murder scene photographs, The Chapman photograph, the Mona Lisa, with each other and indeed should do so, that word is PROVENANCE. Which is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as: The place of origin or history of a work of art etc.
Provenance is the means by which Historians establish the authenticity of an article or artifact. IT is NOT an exact science but Qualified professional opinion much like hand writing analysis. However it is the means by which almost every painting , book, suit of armor etc etc is established as either FAKE or GENUINE.

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Discovery_of_William_Shakespeare_Portrait.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/cleanup-reveals-workshop-painting-as-genuine-velazquez-after-clean-1786155.html

And while as Sam says the Marginalia if fairly unique in Ripper the problems of accessing whether or not it is genuine is faced on a regular basis in the art world.

Vast sums of money are risked on exactly the same evidence. Based on PROVENANCE and Expert Qualified opinion (which is not 100%).

Whether accessing style and brush stokes, and a signature or whether considering handwriting you are not dealing with an exact science.

The above paintings have been called and are referred to in the art world as GENUINE

Yet they are no more or less Genuine than the Marginalia.

Technically of course they should prefix the world PROBABLY genuine, but they do not…..

Interesting computer programmes are currently being developed that can analyze paintings and determine that they are genuine or NOT. So it has occurred to me that the same program might be used to determine handwriting on the Marginalia.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/davinci/article/article_04.html

"But even now, science already plays a major role in differentiating frauds and copies from genuine masterpieces. As McCrone once put it, whether a scientific authenticator judged a painting to be genuine or a fraud, the expert "can be more confident in that belief than anyone who lacks objective scientific evidence.""

However whether or not a computer can be more accurate than a human being I am not certain? Surely as long as we except the ‘out there’ fantasy scenario’s there will always be tiny tiny elements of doubt which we simply have to eliminate because they are so small that they are improbable.

Certainly if a computer program does exist I would be most interested in it being used on the Marginalia. I would imagine however this would be very costly and I’m not certain where the resources would be found to do so…

It seems logical however that the technology to do so will eventually be able to do so, beyond doubt, and better than human beings.

But I would imagine that if even a computer found the Marginalia to be Genuine that someone somewhere would reach a conclusion that there was room for computer error…PROBABLY.
Jeff

PS I have just noticed that people have been posting of which I was unaware...I wasnt being rude but started this post around sinx this morning and have only just put it up. xx

[Stephen Leece]

Jeff why are you mentioning the Black Diary of poet, proto-Fascist and Paedophile Roger Casement in the same breath as the Salamander letter?
The Black Diary is genuine- even the Irish concede that. It was a marvellous day at Trinity when that occurred.

[Sam Flynn]

Lets move on to why I believe we can compare letters and photographs, the Maybrick Diary, the salamander letter, the Casement Diary, the Abberline Diary, the Murder scene photographs
Hi Jeff,

As I said - that there are OTHER forgeries "out there" is of no relevance whatsoever to the genuineness of the marginalia, so there's absolutely no use in making comparisons. The marginalia, like anything else, have to stand or fall on their own merits.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

I think your missing what I’m saying. Whether we discuss Magna Carter, the Maybrick Diray, the Salamander letter is irrelevant they are all by FACT historical artifacts, be they letters or paints or manuscripts.

Whether they are Fake or Genuine is again irrelevant.

The FACT is that the process used to determine whether they were fake or genuine were all the same. Those processes were applied and different conclusions which faced various problems were made.

The Salamander letters for instance were particularly interesting as they appeared to have excellent provenance and exact hand writing matches….However in this particular instance we had a crocked art dealer who had very cleverly and masterfully laid false trails and handwriting examples, a master forger.. It set of circumstance are unique but they demonstrate some of the possible thinking required when considering PROVENANCE and Handwriting Authentication.

I certainly don’t want to get into a comparison with the Maybrick Diary (I cant believe I’ve actually mentioned it) But the Diary regardless of what your belief had a poor PROVENANCE it turned up in a pub, and over a period of years people changed there stories about where it came from. By FACT it has a poor provenance (at least at present)

The Marginalia has an excellent provenance. We know where its been or can account for almost every year of its life. It was passed from Swanson to his sister who never opened it. But the story seems highly probable for an old book. When she died she left it to JIM and his brother. This seems logical. They found it and noticed the writing.

Its not like it turned up in a pub with an old work mate saying I’m dieing I want you to have this?

Provenance is the means by which Historians access whether something is GENUINE.

The Casement Diary also has an excellent Provenance. What is questioned is whether or not they were written by Rodger Casement. I’m not commenting on what I believe , just that they demonstrate some of the problems associated with handwriting analysis.

It was said on another site by SPE “that the Status Quo’ of the marginalia has changed.

If he meant by that that ‘Public perception’ has changed then he’s probably correct. But the Status Quo of whether the Marginalia is actually Genuine or Fake hasn’t changed one jot.

We have tiny snippets of extra information from the Davis report but that’s all. The Staus Quo is still the same as it ever was based on it PROVENANCE (which is the same) and the conclusion of expert analysis which is the same….It’s Genuine..

It would therefore be wrong and a hat tip to fashion to say its ‘Probably Genuine’ we do not referred to painting once authenticated as Genuine as ‘Probably genuine’

The only time I would use the would ‘Probably’ would be when directly referencing what Dr Davis Said.

Jeff

[Howard Brown]

I suppose if you tell a lie often enough it becomes truth in Ripperdom.

Bob...Not only is that a relevant thought, but over time, as in many other areas or venues, the lie gathers layers upon layers of other details to it that also need to be shrugged off....sort of like with a certain suspect I used to investigate. The amount of applied nonsense upon an originally bad proposition was astounding.

Mr. B...sor

I understand what you meant thoroughly...and I understand and agree that any and all Document A and Document B scenarios require being put through a process of authentication to establish their authenticity regardless of their importance. That no one has or probably will put the Chapman photo through some sort of acid test to confirm its authenticity tells me that its been accepted as is. Why? Because in the scheme of things, it not case "evidence" as the SM most certainly is or is considered.

However...and not to nitpick the issue...there may be some minor differences in how authenticity is ascertained...and thats what I saw in this case where other documents were brought up in reference to how the SM was analyzed.

Lets say Document A is a recently found straight forward handwritten signature on a Ripper missive...a communique on non descript,generically available paper reportedly from Abberline to Swanson stating..."You know Don, I'm wondering about this guy Larkins' Portugese theory....".

Most of us, if not all of us, would focus not only on the signature, but the content of the message, and obviously the paper and ink. Its process of authentication would factor in these three areas...as well as others I may be overlooking.

Lets say Document B is a recently found handwritten document with a watermark from the Home Office in 1888 produced only in 1888 and never replicated and the memo says " Get off your bum, Abberline, and pound the beat harder..." signed Charles Warren.

This document's paper wouldn't be scrutinized too excessively and the signature could be compared to Warren's with virtual ease. It would be the content that recieved most of the focus, I would think.

This, in a nutshell, is what I meant Mr. B....about comparing two documents to one another....while they both need to be or may be scrupulously analyzed, one's scrutinization may involve other factors....and thats what I see transpiring when we try to compare one document to another.

Of course, Jeff or I have a right to openly question content of documents, since neither of us possess the machinery by which documents are tested in their own, often unique, way for physical authenticity.

Its when we compare a document to another document which doesn't require the same degree of evaluation was what I was worried about. In my scenario above, A would require greater scrutiny than B...or at least I think so.

I think that while its a possible case of a tempest in a teapot, I was worried... not for the original suggestion that we should reconsider its authenticity...because I am somewhat glad that that occurred, but for the way another document was brought in for comparitive purposes, when that or any other document is unique and while requiring scrutiny, its a whole 'nother animal altogether.

Since I take sides with the argument that it, the SM, is legitimate at this point in time...all I wanted to see the focus of the thread be squarely on the SM..

Thats my view on the matter, Mr. B. I hope that the consideration of the SM's authenticity remains open, free of external comparision.

[Howard Brown]

It was said on another site by SPE “that the Status Quo’ of the marginalia has changed.

If he meant by that that ‘Public perception’ has changed then he’s probably correct. But the Status Quo of whether the Marginalia is actually Genuine or Fake hasn’t changed one jot.

Jeff:



If the handwriting found in the Marginalia is possibly not genuine, that is... that its not from DSS, then what was written was written specifically to correlate DSS to SRA's position on the identification by someone else and nullifies the authenticity to a great degree. It doesn't affect what SRA himself said, but it presents the obvious problem of someone forging DSS' handwriting to the endpaper.

If the content is valid, inasmuch in that it corroborates what SRA stated in 1910, then the handwriting becomes the focus. It has become the focus...as it should.

Mr. Evans' comment on the status quo, if you have quoted him correctly, may be a matter of more people openly questioning its authenticity as opposed to previous years where skepticism was less open as it is now....and I think he's right on that count.

I think as time goes on, that you'll see more open skepticism to the SM's authenticity specifically for the way people are claiming that 99.9 percent equals 100 percent certainty Jeff.:playball:

If you or even I myself can't see that the mere questioning of an important document's physical authenticity is normal and which I again,for the umpteenth time, agree is legitimate until proven otherwise, then we are denying ourselves the possibility that may indeed exist....that the SM may not be what it seems. It doesn't hurt or cost anything and only seems to annoy those who support the SRA claims of 1910.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Howard

I haven’t quoted SPE in full because I’m not certain what the policy is for doing so. Can I quote from Casebook?

However I think your correct that it is the political ‘Status Quo’ i.e. people perception that has changed and not the facts that surround the marginalia.

The problem seems to be that you can’t get your head around why 99.9% means it’s genuine.

OK, Lets try elaborating a little more.

Firstly it is agreed; hopefully that handwriting is not an exact science. Its not a DNA test. Or a fingerprint. Its qualified professional opinion. Which means that because of human error it’s not possible for a handwriting expert to give a 100% result.

All any handwriting expert can give in a conclusion on any examination is 99.9%;

Bare in mind that while the Marginalia is hugely important to us, to most professional hand writing experts it’s probably a sideshow. They can there money working on jobs that cost millions. Fraud, artwork, commercial. The marginalia is small potatoes.

When they give there qualified professional opinion however all that they can say is ‘probably written by’

So why is Dr Davis conclusion different from Totty?

Well I guess most of you are looking for a complex and conspiracy based answer. But as with all these things the simplest and most obvious is staring everyone in the face.

The simple fact is that while you all perceive the life of Ripperologists like Paul, Martin and Keith to be very glamorous. Limo’s, exotic holidays, fast cars and glamorous women. The reality is a little more mundane.

Quite simply as I understand at he time of the original investigation resources were limited. Paul, Martin and Keith did there best to authenticate the marginalia with the resources available. And it is apparent that they did a damn good job. However what we got was what was financially viable.

One can only presume that when the Marginalia was donated to the Metropolitan police force that suddenly the full financial backing and resources of that institution were suddenly available. Thus a more complete and throe examination was able to take place, this time.

Dr Davis report doesn’t reach a different conclusion to Totty’s. Its simply more detailed because we can assume more time and money were available. We do NOT have different conclusions just a more detail conclusion. IT’S THE SAME THING.

Because all either expert was able to say was ‘PROBABLY WRITEN BY SWANSON’ ie 99.9% which means its genuine as the provenance is the same.

All the best Jeff

PS Have discover my boat has been broken into so may not be able to reply.

[Paul]

That no one has or probably will put the Chapman photo through some sort of acid test to confirm its authenticity tells me that its been accepted as is. Why? Because in the scheme of things, it not case "evidence" as the SM most certainly is or is considered.

Or it may be a case of not being excessively sceptical; in other words, that enough work had been done to satisfy people that the photograph of Chapman is what it is purported to be, namely a photograph of Chapman, and that doing further work on it would have been overkill. The same can be said of the marginalia or any other item which you consider to be historically more important than the photograph. It's not a matter of the items importance but how much you feel needs to be done before authentication (or otherwise) can be accepted.

And of course it is legitimate for people to come along and question prior conclusions and maybe take the tests a few steps further. That's how our understanding of the past changes and advances.

[Howard Brown]

You sure can quote from over yonder, Jeff...as long as its presented in the context in which it was originally written...which applies to everyone and not just you.

So why is Dr Davis conclusion different from Totty?

Well I guess most of you are looking for a complex and conspiracy based answer. But as with all these things the simplest and most obvious is staring everyone in the face.

The simple fact is that while you all perceive the life of Ripperologists like Paul, Martin and Keith to be very glamorous. Limo’s, exotic holidays, fast cars and glamorous women. The reality is a little more mundane.
***************

I don't think that the above is pertinent to the issue of the SM, Jeff. I like making jokes as much as anyone, but whether Mr. Fido is driving a Maserati is irrelevant. :kiss:

You can suggest ulterior motives all you like, but for the umpteenth and one'th time now, I agree with you on the SM...and I am sure many others do as well....for one reason or the other. It seems as if you would want us to be more or less harnessed into not considering any possibility that the Marginalia is anything other than what you want people to see it as. I think there are enough intelligent individuals here who can make an assessment on their own without being hamstrung by someone soapboxing for the validity of the document. I don't mean to insult your style...but lets let people think on their own, because if I did have a dog in this fight, I would be a little concerned that your argument would make people who otherwise wouldn't think about the SM...definitely think twice about it.

Hope your boat is in good order, Jeff.

How

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr.B

I'll get to your comment later.... I have to go do a YouTube Program with J.Malcolm. Us media stars have to do what we have to do...

A thought which I haven't mentioned before, but everyone has thought of... "what can be done to assure the provenance of the SM beyond doubt ?", my answer would be.... I wouldn't know . People who are in possession of it probably have done all they could or can do.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't think that the above is pertinent to the issue of the SM, Jeff. I like making jokes as much as anyone, but whether Mr. Fido is driving a Maserati is irrelevant.

Sorry Howard, but using humour to make a serious point is the way us Brits are made. And I was making a serious point.

The only difference between the two tests. Dr Davis and Totty.

Is the amount of time and money spent on them.

The Joke was the way I say stuff.


You can suggest ulterior motives all you like, but for the umpteenth and one'th time now, I agree with you on the SM...and I am sure many others do as well..


I’m not suggesting anything, I’m trying to analysis the difference between Totty and Davis.


..for one reason or the other. It seems as if you would want us to be more or less harnessed into not considering any possibility that the Marginalia is anything other than what you want people to see it as.

Its not a question of what I want people to see it as or beleive, But it is a question of perception. Because it is perception that has changed NOT the authenticity of the Marginalia which is the SAME.

I think there are enough intelligent individuals here who can make an assessment on their own without being hamstrung by someone soapboxing for the validity of the document. I don't mean to insult your style...but lets let people think on their own, because if I did have a dog in this fight, I would be a little concerned that your argument would make people who otherwise wouldn't think about the SM...definitely think twice about it.

Hope your boat is in good order, Jeff.

I’m not trying to argue that people cant think about it. I’m arguing that the required scenario’s too make the Marginalia a fraud or Hoax, are so ‘out there’ that they cease to be credible. They require huge leaps of faith. And go against common sense. because they are 0.01% possible.

Colin or Septic Blue, created a scenario (and let me say I like him very much) but it was totally improbable given the known facts. It was like an episode of ‘Waking the Dead’ not real life.

I’ll keep hammering away Howard, but not because I want others to believe that the marginalia is either Fake or Genuine.

What I wish is the freedom to report the facts as they are, which is for all intensive purpose, as any other historical document would be reported given the same analysis and tests…

That is that 99.9% means it or any other work of art is GENUINE because 99.9% is the only probability open to those who do the tests.

And if its good enough for someone who spends millions of pounds on a piece of art, then its good enough for Ripperologists.

I want the freedom not to put the word PROBABLY were it is not required, and without hassel from other Ripperologists!

Jeff

PS I have lost all my fishing gear and the so and so’s knicked all the booze. (including the Champiagn!)

PS many thanks for taking the time to consider my posts, it is appreciated.

[Sam Flynn]

I’m arguing that the required scenario’s too make the Marginalia a fraud or Hoax, are so ‘out there’ that they cease to be credible... because they are 0.01% possible.
The fraud/hoax scenario isn't 0.01% possible, Jeff, anymore than the Marginalia are 99.99% genuine. As I've said, you can't put a percentage on their genuineness - they're either 100% authentic or they're not.

[Jeff Leahy]

The fraud/hoax scenario isn't 0.01% possible, Jeff, anymore than the Marginalia are 99.99% genuine. As I've said, you can't put a percentage on their genuineness - they're either 100% authentic or they're not.

My piont is that you cant ever give a virdict of 100% because you have to allow for human error.

So if you did so, no painting, no manuscript, no history is genuine..

becasue all anyone can say about anything is Probably Genuine.

That logic presumes that nothing ever happened including the first and second world war..

I think Orwell called it NEW SPEAK

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

My piont is that you cant ever give a virdict of 100% because you have to allow for human error.
Then it's a given person's verdict (or opinion) which one should classify as "99% certain", Jeff, not the authenticity of the Marginalia. One can say "Person X is 99% sure the Marginalia are genuine", but that's not the same as saying that the Marginalia themselves are 99% genuine - which would be illogical - merely that "person X" places 99% confidence in his or her opinion about the Marginalia.

[Archaic]

Hi, Sam.

I agree with you here; a given document either is or is not authentic.

When its authenticity is in doubt, that doubt may be expressed as a greater or lesser likelihood,
but this in no way affects the actual authenticity (or lack thereof) of the questioned document.

In other words, we may be correct or incorrect in our opinions, but the document simply "is what it is".

[Paul]

A thought which I haven't mentioned before, but everyone has thought of... "what can be done to assure the provenance of the SM beyond doubt ?", my answer would be.... I wouldn't know . People who are in possession of it probably have done all they could or can do.

Nothing can be done to prove that the marginalia is 100% genuine because there will always be people who will have one reason or another for questioning it. It's a bit like the old joke about the man who is convinced that his wife is having and affair and hires a private detective to get the evidence, and when after months of trailing her day in and day out the detective says there is no evidence that the wife is having an affair, the man concludes that she is having an affair but is being damned clever about it.

[Jeff Leahy]

Then it's a given person's verdict (or opinion) which one should classify as "99% certain", Jeff, not the authenticity of the Marginalia. One can say "Person X is 99% sure the Marginalia are genuine", but that's not the same as saying that the Marginalia themselves are 99% genuine - which would be illogical - merely that "person X" places 99% confidence in his or her opinion about the Marginalia.

There is only opinion. The logical conclusion to your reasoning is that nothing exists unless you can feel, see or touch it. That way lies the philosophy of Berkley?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

NOTHING EXISTS, IT’S ALL IN THE MIND.

Yet the marginalia is real. All any human being can say about it is that it is PROBABLY GENUINE.

In fact all anyone can say about any historical document is that it is PROBALY GENUINE.

So its going to take someone a long time to go through every history book with a marker pen and write the word PROBABLY in front of every referenec to any historical document.

What you are asking us to except, are idol dreams and fantacy as reality?

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi, Sam.

I agree with you here; a given document either is or is not authentic.

When its authenticity is in doubt, that doubt may be expressed as a greater or lesser likelihood,
but this in no way affects the actual authenticity (or lack thereof) of the questioned document.

In other words, we may be correct or incorrect in our opinions, but the document simply "is what it is".

Please explain to us how anyone can conclude a document is 100% genuine?

It is NOT possible. Therefore youre concluding nothing is GENUINE.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry it should have read 'ALL IN THE MIND OF GOD'

I'm a bit rusty on my Berkley philosophy.

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Yet the marginalia is real. All any human being can say about it is that it is PROBABLY GENUINE.The problem is, Jeff, is that you've claimed that a document can be 99% genuine because some opinions say as much - but that doesn't follow if those opinions happen to be incorrect.What you are asking us to except, are idol dreams and fantacy as reality?I'm not asking anyone to accept anything, Jeff - other than that we understand the difference between an opinion and a "definitely ascertained fact", to coin a phrase :)

[Archaic]

Jeff, any given document either IS genuine or it IS NOT genuine.

What fallible human beings MIGHT CONCLUDE about that document at a given moment in time in no way affects what it actually IS.

I might say Document A is genuine and you may say it's not genuine, but neither of those opinions has any effect upon what the document actually is.


> Hmmm... Wasn't it the great philosopher Rene Descartes that said, "I think, therefore I probably am? :)

[Stephen Leece]

Sorry it should have read 'ALL IN THE MIND OF GOD'

I'm a bit rusty on my Berkley philosophy.

Jeff

Jeff, if you want philosophy, prove to me that god exists. I do love these sorts of arguments. You appear to be saying we cannot be sure that a document is 100% genuine, and only god can know exactly what it is. There's more evidence for the genuiness of the SM than there ever could be for the existence of a god.
NB I refuse to use capital letters when discussing 'god' and other mythical creations of Bronze Age Palestinian illiterates.

[Howard Brown]

Please explain to us how anyone can conclude a document is 100% genuine?

It is NOT possible. Therefore you're concluding nothing is GENUINE.
-----------Mr. Leahy
Jeff:
If your drivers license is not genuine, what are you doing driving an auto?
If your license to operate a maritime vessel is not genuine, what are you doing behind the wheel ?
If your birth certificate may not be as genuine as you think, what are you doing using the name Jeff Leahy ?
If the article in the Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine cannot possibly be proven to have actually been written by SRA, why are you pushing this issue so much?

C'mon Jeff....drop it. To you its genuine, to us...even me...its possible that it could not be.

Capece?

[Paul]

The problem is, Jeff, is that you've claimed that a document can be 99% genuine because some opinions say as much - but that doesn't follow if those opinions happen to be incorrect.

That applies to everything doesn't it?

[Paul]

Please explain to us how anyone can conclude a document is 100% genuine?

It is NOT possible. Therefore you're concluding nothing is GENUINE.
-----------Mr. Leahy
Jeff:
If your drivers license is not genuine, what are you doing driving an auto?
If your license to operate a maritime vessel is not genuine, what are you doing behind the wheel ?
If your birth certificate may not be as genuine as you think, what are you doing using the name Jeff Leahy ?
If the article in the Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine cannot possibly be proven to have actually been written by SRA, why are you pushing this issue so much?

C'mon Jeff....drop it. To you its genuine, to us...even me...its possible that it could not be.

Capece?

Er, I think what Jeff is actually saying, and I may be wrong here, is that the SM has been examined by an experienced document examiner who, with certain cautious caveats in place, is of the opinion that it was written by Swanson. Ergo, on the basis of that person's analysis, coupled with whetever other evidence there may be pertaining to provenance, the SM is genuine. Being cautious, too, the caveats, whilst perceived as a manifestation of the fear experts have of wrecking their career by reaching a decisive conclusion which turns out to be wrong, are nevertheless noted and so one says the SM is 99.9% likely to be genuine.

Others can, of course, question that conclusion if they want to, and maybe it will be shown somewhere down the line that they were right to do so, but that's in the nature of things. Research is like climbing a ladder. You examine the first rung, have others who know a lot about ladders have a look at it too, and when satisfied that it is probably safe to step on it, you carefully place your size ten on it. Then you repeat the process. Other people will stand around at the bottom of the ladder and worry whether the first rung is safe or not. They do nothing, go nowhere, never see the view from up the ladder. And if the fellow who's up the ladder falls back down again, well, at least he went somewhere, tried to move things on a little bit. And if he doesn't fall back down again... Jeeze, I'm begining to spout homespun philosophy like Sherif Andy Taylor talking to Opie, so shucks, I'm going to see Ellie over at the drugstore and get a sody pop.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well I’m agreeing Sam, that the Marginalia is either Fake or Genuine.

So its our perception of how probable in either direction it is likely to be based on the evidence that we have. The problem is that no handwriting expert can give us 100% certainty prediction. Even if Paul is correct, someone invents a new computer program we feed in every example of Swanson’s known handwriting (and remember a clever forger lays deliberate false trails) And we get more accurate information on the ladder run. We are still going to be left with a PROBABILITY. Of it being genuine rather than fake. We can NOT get a finite answer. As its NOT a science.

However the likely hood or fakery becomes so improbable that’s its about as likely as a missile heading straight towards you turning into a Sperm whale.

If you do not like my example of Berkley’s reasoning that nothing is real or tangible but God. Then perhaps Douglas Adams might help move things along

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA


Of course Descartes clearly also did not see the need to inject the word PROBABLY
where it is NOT required.

http://www.creatingthe21stcentury.org/Intro8b-Descartes.html

So I’m not trying to stop Howard asking questions about the authenticity of the marginalia or anyone wishing to do so carrying on doing so.


What I’m saying is that for the purpose of reference the marginalia is GENUINE without the need to preface it with the prefix PROBABLY because the probability is so small that it can be disregarded. If we did do so then we would be required to use the prefix in front of every document, because like the Sperm whale in Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy we can imagine almost any probability. But that does not make it probability..

If the ‘Probability’ police turn up every time you mention the Marginalia saying

“Hey you can’t say that you can only say ‘probably written by Swanson” then we are continually directed into a Bermuda Triangle of existence. Because in all probability 99.9% probable, the Marginalia is GENUINE.

The only time one would prefix the word PROBABLY is when directly quoting DR Davis report.

Jeff

[Stephen Leece]

Jeff, all you're doing is playing with words. Only a Ripperologist could cite Douglas Adams as an authority on anything other than pretentious comedy dramas.

[Simon Wood]

Oh Jeez,

I seem to have stumbled upon the Twilight Zone or, perhaps, Wonderland, where Alice constantly strived to discern between unusual logic and utter nonsense [Lewis Carroll obviously hadn't yet heard of the phrase "major bollocks"].

Give it up, guys. None of this does you any favours.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Nothing can be done to prove that the marginalia is 100% genuine because there will always be people who will have one reason or another for questioning it. It's a bit like the old joke about the man who is convinced that his wife is having and affair and hires a private detective to get the evidence, and when after months of trailing her day in and day out the detective says there is no evidence that the wife is having an affair, the man concludes that she is having an affair but is being damned clever about it.


Hi Paul,this sounds to me more analgous to the source of the marginalia which began by Lawende stating categorically to both Police forces that he would not be able to recognise the man or the woman again that he had only half noticed in the dark of Church passage on the night of the double event and having been badgered repeatedly by someone high up from Scotland Yard he finally gives in and is taken as a " witness" to view some queer hanky panky in a policeman"s seaside home where a wretched man by the name of Kosminski has been given a day"s release from a lunatic asylum to be identified by Lawende as Jack the Ripper.:tape:

[Donald Souden]

Sam,

The fraud/hoax scenario isn't 0.01% possible, Jeff, anymore than the Marginalia are 99.99% genuine. As I've said, you can't put a percentage on their genuineness . . .

Hate to be troublesome. but with the Swanson marginalia, at least, there is another possibility. That is, the comments on the endpaper were written with a different pencil and some discern differences, however subtle, from the hand that wrote in the margin. Thus, if the writing in the margin was by Swanson but that that on the endpaper was not, then the Swanson marginalia might be only 50% genuine.

Now I don't for a minute endorse that position, but just having a little fun suggesting how the marginalia could be some percentage genuine.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

Hate to be troublesome. but with the Swanson marginalia, at least, there is another possibility. That is, the comments on the endpaper were written with a different pencil and some discern differences, however subtle, from the hand that wrote in the margin. Thus, if the writing in the margin was by Swanson but that that on the endpaper was not, then the Swanson marginalia might be only 50% genuine.

That had occurred to me, Don - in which case I'd view the margin notes as 100% genuine and the endpaper 100% not. Whether it makes sense to combine the two to give a 50% overall rating I personally doubt.

This ain't something I'd want to discuss further, by the way - not out of any desire to "censor" debate, but simply because it might well drive us mad :)

[Howard Brown]

Fellows,ladies...and Sam:

I asked Nats over on the other boards this following question...I'll paste it here.

So far no one seems to have openly considered that it may have been Swanson who told SRA...and not the other way around....about the identification.

Please let me know what you think of that possibility.

Thank you. Here's what I asked Nats:
****************************

Excuse me Nats...

Being as neutral as possible on this whole issue...other than totally rejecting the idea that this identification was a mere anti-foreigner "usual suspect" set up...... and someone with no dog in the fight...

How do you or I know whether or not if it was Swanson that was present at the identification of the suspect...,,, with SRA nowhere in sight...and that Swanson merely corroborated (with the footnotes) what he himself told SRA about the details of this identification ? Where's it say that one way or the other in the literature, Nats?

How do we know that someone else who attended the identification on behalf of the police department with the two officials nowhere in sight... didn't tell Swanson first...who then told SRA...who (SRA) then goes on to write about the identification first...who then authors an autobiography....Swanson reads his copy...gets to the identification part of the book....and then makes some notes ?

How do we know that someone who attended the identification didn't tell both of the officials what went down according to that individual's interpretation of events...and that SRA first wrote about it with Swanson following suit with the footnotes ?

There's a few variables I think that get overlooked in this entire affair as far as who did what first and if either man was actually present. Enough so to keep this aspect of the Case going for another 121 years......

Whether or not the notations are legitimate is an issue I'm not qualified to comment on...obviously.. My only concern is that we haven't explored the possibility that Swanson was present and only corroborating what he or someone else told SRA....and we have things assbackwards .

If it is assbackwards, then is it not possible that SRA was actually merely reflecting upon what his colleague had told him, first in Blackwood's and then in his biography ?...without dropping his name ( Swanson's) into the mix? Just like he didn't drop Kosminski's name into the mix.

[Natalie Severn]

How,
You may be right,its so difficult to try to put one"s self into the mindset of either Swanson or Anderson.I know Anderson did claim -on quite another matter---to have had a chap in who was under suspicion about something or other , and to have carried out a sort of bizarre "psychological experiment " on him in his office.Anderson claimed to have firmly established the chap"s guilt when having looked eyeball to eyeball at him in his office ,the chap was reduced to a shivering wreck----and that proved the man"s guilt -thats what I seem to recall at anyrate.
Well clearly,if either Swanson or Anderson attempted a similar "experiment" or "set up" a similar experiment with others such as the convalescing police officers at the seaside home --and brought in poor old Kosminski ----who was well out of it by 1892/3 or later-
then it couldnt surely have cut the mustard with the likes of Macnaghten?
Its so bizarre all of it that one wonders if Swanson and Anderson were very secretive about it all so much so that much of the information stayed just between the two of them---rather than them risking sharing the results of such an unusual and off the wall "experiment" with the more "conventional " thinking and procedures of the Police Service?Just some thoughts on it.......

[Howard Brown]

Dear Natalie:

Thank you so much for answering my question...because I have never seen anyone mention the incident you referred to of Anderson & The Chap In The Chair and the Identification put side by side for comparison. maybe someone has mentioned it, but I've never seen it.

I know Mr. Evans mentioned that incident in Scotland Yard Investigates for those who may not have access to SRA's written work.

It's a little startling,since its sort of the way a parent gets "the truth" out of their offspring. It doesn't impress me as being the way a senior police official would approach an interrogation...and in all honesty, I don't know what grade or rank SRA held ( I should know,shouldn't I ?:banghead:) when that occurred.

Back to your point..which I think is very intriguing,Nats.

If the identification did go down in a similar way as you suggest, then it is very problematic in my view. It could very well mean that the mutual conclusion was arrived at by SRA & DSS... or by just one of them..based on very little input by the witness at all. If this scenario did indeed go down like the Chap In The Chair ( to give the incident a reference point ) incident did...then I would have to lean towards SRA being the official involved over DSS...since SRA himself declared ( boasted,anyone?) that he had conducted an interrogation in just that manner.

I would hope that people on the site who are reading this, whether "pro" or "anti" Anderson or even those who are "neutral" would make a comment about the point I made and the incident Natalie mentioned...because I haven't seen that incident used in comparison with the statements made by SRA.... plus I for one think Natalie's idea is a pretty good one to consider.

.....and thanks Natalie:kiss:, for perspiring me to come up with another Anderson thread which I will put up now, entitled:

The West End Murder & SRA

[Donald Souden]

Sam,

This ain't something I'd want to discuss further, by the way - not out of any desire to "censor" debate, but simply because it might well drive us mad

With all due respect, for either of us that ain't a drive but a putt.

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks How.Come to think of it, Anderson played a similarly unconventional role in the Rose Mylett affair.In that one he had decided not just that Rose was not a victim of Jack the Ripper [her death was in late December 1888 in Poplar which is not far from Whitechapel],but he also decided,and his views were challenged by several other senior police surgeons on the matter ,that Rose died of natural causes.Now in order to establish this he had to first go with Dr Bond to the mortuary and conduct a physical examination for himself of her corpse-even though he was not a medical practitioner,and,satisfied he had persuaded Dr Bond to agree with him,ie to agree that Rose had not been murdered but had died from natural causes, he then returned with several other police surgeons to show them why he had reached the conclusion he had , to challenge their authority as medical practitioners.The other police surgeons,apart from Dr Bond, remained unconvinced.But Anderson believed he "knew" he was right.
Once again we have a somewhat irregular procedure taking place,by Anderson ,at night and out of hours in the first instance when it was just himself and Dr Bond.And subsequently too,Anderson:s findings became "non negotiable" viz....her death was from natural causes and that was a FACT---[definite and ascertainable]..........
So in many ways Anderson was quite a maverick especially when he was on his hobby horse solving a puzzle.
Cheers
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats;

The reference you kindly provided to the Mylett murder and SRA's comments... irrespective of whether she committed suicide, got murdered, or died accidentally...is,as we mentioned a while back, a little unusual because medicos indeed believed she was murdered. Good point again,Nats.

[Paul]

Thanks How.Come to think of it, Anderson played a similarly unconventional role in the Rose Mylett affair.In that one he had decided not just that Rose was not a victim of Jack the Ripper [her death was in late December 1888 in Poplar which is not far from Whitechapel],but he also decided,and his views were challenged by several other senior police surgeons on the matter ,that Rose died of natural causes.Now in order to establish this he had to first go with Dr Bond to the mortuary and conduct a physical examination for himself of her corpse-even though he was not a medical practitioner,and,satisfied he had persuaded Dr Bond to agree with him,ie to agree that Rose had not been murdered but had died from natural causes, he then returned with several other police surgeons to show them why he had reached the conclusion he had , to challenge their authority as medical practitioners.The other police surgeons,apart from Dr Bond, remained unconvinced.But Anderson believed he "knew" he was right.
Once again we have a somewhat irregular procedure taking place,by Anderson ,at night and out of hours in the first instance when it was just himself and Dr Bond.And subsequently too,Anderson:s findings became "non negotiable" viz....her death was from natural causes and that was a FACT---[definite and ascertainable]..........
So in many ways Anderson was quite a maverick especially when he was on his hobby horse solving a puzzle.
Cheers
Norma

That's not exactly what happened, Norma.

[Natalie Severn]

That's not exactly what happened, Norma.

It was how I remembered it Paul and I rather think it was more or less the substance of the matter, but I havent my books here in Wales ,so do elucidate if you believe I have misrepresented Anderson.
I also needed to check out a famous story of Anderson telling a journalist about how an experienced policeman such as himself could "divine" guilt in a criminal and telling a journalist about a man whose guilt he had "divined" simply by eyeballing him.He apparently brought the man into his office and "outstared" him and after a few minutes of this medusa like performance by Anderson, the man began to shake and tremble whereupon Anderson knew he was guilty of a certain crime.
Do you happen to have a reference for this Paul?I would be very grateful if you could point me in its direction,
Many Thanks,
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Dear Natalie:

Thats the story found in Scotland Yard Investigates ( for quick reference) on page 248....about the West End murder in which a woman was strangled...a man taken to SY to have a sit down with SRA...who mentions the "photographed retina" gimmick to the suspected man ( who originally gave the police some friction, according to the story....)...the man reacted to this concept....that the last thing the victim saw may have been the killer's face...and based on how the man reacted, SRA determined he was guilty...a moral certainty according to the Asst. Commissioner.

No one was charged with the murder and it went either unsolved or at least if it was eventually resolved, we aren't told.

Thats the case I was hoping that researchers in the UK would check out, since I'd like to know if the case was solved and some other details...

Unless you are referring to another case...then thats the one I think you mean,Nats.

[Stephen Leece]

A "moral certainty" is when you know something to be true, but can't prove it to be so. So odds on this murder was never solved.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stephen:

One thing that is apparent is that this suspect in the West End murder case didn't confess...despite any physical discomfort the suspect displayed during this sit down.

Imagine if the suspected man had had a lawyer present !...which is a little puzzling, if this West Ender had any available funds or contacts and then didn't hire a lawyer ....

Even if the guy confessed in a one on one with SRA....what proof could SRA provide of it ? He could have laughed in SRA's face and confessed at the same time....if it was a one on one...and I'm not sure this confession would be of much value....but then again, I'm not as well versed in UK law as others are.

This is but one reason I am interested in this case and again, I'm hoping that somewhere down the line someone could find a reference to it somewhere in the newspapers....

[Stephen Leece]

What SRA's saying there is, "I know he is guilty, I can tell by looking at him." What he meant to say was, "I think he's guilty but I can't prove it." 'Moral certainty' is just a weasel-term used by people that have no facts, no evidence, no nothing.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stephen:

I hear that. I know that some folks will flinch even when telling the truth if braced on an important and even unimportant issue.

Do you see what I am driving at here ? I remember reading SYI a year ago and coming across this case which occurred during SRA's tenure...but,as usual, put a reference to it on one of my computers and forgot it....and it was only until Nats said something yesterday that I remembered that aspect of the case...that the man had no legal representation mentioned in the story.

Thats why I brought it up again....because and unless I am mistaken, Stephen, this suspect could have confessed to anything....but it wouldn't stand up in court since I noticed that the sitdown was really a "one on one" with SRA and no one else.

Whats your take ?

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Howard.I will look into the case when I get back.I think I have another reference for it at home as well as the one in "Scotland Yard Investigates",
Best
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I think HL Adam's story about Anderson's moral proof and retinal imprint dates from the 1899 murder by suffocation and strangulation of Mrs Briesnik, a fortune teller living near Oxford Street in London.

I'll check to see if I still have the press cutting.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats:

Please do re-read it and consider the part I mentioned about no legal representation....

It makes me think that the guy was either lumpy prole...or maybe not right in the head...because I'm thinking why would someone who was guilty agree to a one on one with SRA or any detective under the circumstances mentioned if he had money to utilize for legal rep.:banghead:

[Howard Brown]

Oh man,Simon...thank you:kiss:

I hope that's the case...

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Yep, here it is, from The Times, 8th March 1899. The woman's name was Briesenick.

6792

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Leece]

My take? I haven't got one, apart from, "Anyone for Peer-Review?" I don't even know which case you're talking about. All I can say is I have a firm grasp of the English language and I can spot weasel words a mile off, which is what the great Spymaster is employing here.
Incidentally the tactic of telling a frightening untruth ("We can photograph the retinas!") to get someone to cough is a classic spy tactic.
Yes it's true if it was a one-on-one chat, it's inadmissable in court under these conditions. Beyond that I can't say anything else.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Simon:

Thanks very much for that article.

One quick question, sor...is that from 1889 or 1899 ?

Dear Stephen:

You said...

"Yes it's true if it was a one-on-one chat, it's inadmissable in court under these conditions."

This is undoubtedly correct in 2009.

But is it possible that it might be accepted in 1889 or 1899 ( depending on what Simon says ) ?

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Simon,Stephen and Howard.Great find Simon!
Interesting points you make Stephen about the tactics of a spymaster----which ofcourse Sir Robert Anderson was!

[Howard Brown]

Almost forgot...

If Briesnick was a German lady...and the suspect was German too....I wonder if the suspect could even speakadagood English ?

[Stephen Leece]

Well there's another good tactic that Anderson must have used at some point- the file, that supposedly contains a confession, from a fellow conspirator. Except the suspect never sees the documentation, they are merely informed about it and shown 'the file.' Trouble is though, every piece of paper in 'the file' is blank :) You've got to love it really :)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

1899. I had to correct both posts. Old Timer's Disease kicking in, I guess.

I agree with Stephen. SRA was full of it. I thought the phrase "weasel words" showed great restraint.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Leece]

Admissable in 1888-9?, god knows- not my field. Maybe someone of Sir. Robert's social standing could get away with it, but I doubt it.

[Stephen Leece]

It's not great restraint, spies and spymasters are trained liars, they are actors 24/7, and it's a role that's impossible to walk away from completely. Remember in SRA's case he's Assistant Commisioner, Head of CID and has his spying sideline. Judging from his behaviour during the Ripper scare, it's pretty obvious which job he considered his main job, and I don't find it surprising that there's some cross-over in methods between his espionage work and his ordinary mundane police work.

[Simon Wood]

Wasn't there a story about Anderson having committed an indecent assault on a train? Or is my brain playing tricks? What did SRA have to say about that?

Stephen—I was saying I thought you showed great restraint in your choice of words; not SRA. He was an accomplished liar. Sanctimonious, too.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the correction Simon..

I have some questions about this case.

1. In 1899..taking Meester Wood's word here...what is SRA doing investigating a murder case or engaging in an inquiry that paid detectives should have been doing? In 1899, SRA was 58 years old.

2. Are there other instances of Assistant Commissioners becoming involved in murder cases of rank and file Londoners...and without sounding elitist, those who may not have been above lower income status?

3. Why would SRA practically boast ( My impression, not necessarily anyone elses...) to Adam of an incident in which SRA tricked someone ?

[Stephen Leece]

Two Germans involved- could be a whiff of anarchy or Marxism or German Imperial agents, hence the Spymaster's involvement.
As for boasting, "Hey look how clever I am, I can smell guilt! If only the courts would give me more leeway." Self-aggrandisment and a sly dig at the justice system. It's another way of saying, "England would be great if I was in charge."

[Howard Brown]

More questions....

4. Can it be determined somehow whether this incident with poor Frau Briesnick was resolved?

5. If we looked deeper into other cases which Scotland Yard handled and which may have not been resolved, would it be possible to ascertain whether there are cases of a similar nature where shenanigans such as the "photographed retina" gimmick was employed to determine guilt...and specifically if SRA was involved?

[Stephen Leece]

There's a potential follow up as well when dealing with European immigrants. If you get nowhere with them, or if you do, but can't prove it, SRA can cut a deal with them. Either stay here and spy on your own immigrant community, or go back to your country of origin and spy for us :)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

I don't know if this is the actual case, but it certainly fits the parameters of a West End woman having been strangled in bed during SRA's tenure at Scotland Yard.

There's a heavy scent of BS to the story, so who's to say if it's true or not? Maybe HL Adams was easily razzle-dazzled. SRA was certainly a legend in his own lunchtime.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stephen:

I got that sense when reading the story originally in SPE's book...that SRA was declaring himself as judge and jury. Policemen, good policemen, know that the judicial arm of the law is not their metier....

I am trying to formulate an (2009) example in my mind which would be akin to what SRA claims occurred in the H.L.Adam book and am having a lot of difficulty.

I'm really glad SPE and DR mentioned that murder in their book, because its pretty strange that a man who, without any doubt, knew that that sort of tactic could not be accepted in court.

It sounds like a case of sour grapes in a way...since this man, and I'll bet that he was an immigrant or maybe even incapable of speaking much English, didn't confess...and all SRA is doing is demonstrating that if he was able put this man to a test of "Trial By Fire" or in this case, Trial By Retina, that he could have extricated the "truth" from him.

How about you folks?

[Stephen Leece]

I think he's a professional spy dealing with a potential agent that can be 'turned.' If he can hang him great, if he can't, he can be useful to Anderson in other ways.

[Sam Flynn]

... the suspect never sees the documentation, they are merely informed about it and shown 'the file.' Trouble is though, every piece of paper in 'the file' is blank
A cunning tactic adopted by the fiendish Eamonn Andrews in his devastating programme of debasement and mental torture called This is Your Life :)

[Stephen Leece]

Yes I often wondered when I was a kid if there was anything printed in there, because to me it looked like there wasn't :)

[Howard Brown]

Stephen,et al..

I notice in rereading that clip that no ethnicity was mentioned for the suspect. I ran with the idea that the lodger was German, because often in our reading, we find Germans letting out to those who had German roots or spoke the language. My error. I sprechen zie too soon.

[Stephen Leece]

Ah! I trusted you! Dammit! Anyone for peer-review? We can't even trust How now!!!! :)
It doesn't detract from the fact he's not using police tactics, but is using espionage tactics in interrogation. Mind (here's me trying to square the circle), a dead foreigner, could have all kinds of cloak and dagger overtones, that would require the expertise of someone like Anderson. I'm quite pleased with the way I dug myself out of that one :)

[Howard Brown]

Stephen....I found an expanded article on this crime...:high5:

Its The Whitfield Street Murder....

[Howard Brown]

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=81501#post81501

Folks....please read the article on this link above.

You will be surprised....:playball:

[Stephen Leece]

Hmmmm, an abortion gone wrong? A bona fide murder? The entire thing is a foreign affair, and any trial should have taken place in London where the crime was committed. Why let Germany run the trial I wonder?

[Debra Arif]

Dear Stephen:

I got that sense when reading the story originally in SPE's book...that SRA was declaring himself as judge and jury. Policemen, good policemen, know that the judicial arm of the law is not their metier....

I am trying to formulate an (2009) example in my mind which would be akin to what SRA claims occurred in the H.L.Adam book and am having a lot of difficulty.

I'm really glad SPE and DR mentioned that murder in their book, because its pretty strange that a man who, without any doubt, knew that that sort of tactic could not be accepted in court.

It sounds like a case of sour grapes in a way...since this man, and I'll bet that he was an immigrant or maybe even incapable of speaking much English, didn't confess...and all SRA is doing is demonstrating that if he was able put this man to a test of "Trial By Fire" or in this case, Trial By Retina, that he could have extricated the "truth" from him.

How about you folks?

Hi How,
Or had Anderson just tried out "French procedure" and admitted to it?
Under French law , as opposed to English at that time, a person was presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the methods of interrogation Anderson described were the methods used by the French police , with no lawyers present and 'thumbscrew tactics' used to gain a confession of guilt. The merits of the two different French and English methods were very much discussed and debated upon at that period,especially by the law society and Anderson does say "he allowed himself to be goaded by popular clamour." Was there a general feeling about, that the English should incorporate French procedure into their judicial system? Maybe he wanted to try it out for himself and see what all the fuss was about?

[Stephen Leece]

Trouble is though he spent time in Paris anyway organising espionage operations (presumably with the knowledge of the French authorities) so I would imagine he was already aware of French methods and whether they worked or not.

[Howard Brown]

Hey Debs:

"Or had Anderson just tried out "French procedure" and admitted to it?"

Thats a very good point,Debra....

To me, it certainly sounds that way and if so, to me, the fact that SRA would even share or tell a story to Adam in regard to police procedure in the manner he admits to, gives me the impression that this dilemma of "moral" vs. "legal" certainty of guilt bothered SRA somewhat. It may have bothered many other police officers...who knows?...but the feeling I get at present is that his description of how he ascertained the man's guilt satisfied him...even if it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell in a courtroom.
That, to me, says something. It says that if SRA was capable of manipulation even when he knew in advance that it was a legally fruitless effort. That's what I see.

How about any of you ?

[SPE]

A minor debate regarding the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes has cropped up on the Casebook site and it has some interesting contributions from Rob House and Chris Phillips.

There seems to be an obsession with the idea that the variances in the pencilled writing indicates possible fakery - or, more specifically, that merely pointing out these variances is the same as actually making the suggestion that they may, in part, be faked. This is simply not true. As I have pointed out on several occasions whatever these variances indicate they are relevant and should have been noted a long time ago.

If, as has been suggested, they indicate a much later date of writing they are very relevant in that Swanson would have been much older and suffering from reduced or impaired faculties. The internal evidence shows that the endpaper notes, which are the most problematical, were written later than the marginalia at the bottom of page 138, thus adding support to this idea.

[Chris G.]

A minor debate regarding the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes has cropped up on the Casebook site and it has some interesting contributions from Rob House and Chris Phillips.

There seems to be an obsession with the idea that the variances in the pencilled writing indicates possible fakery - or, more specifically, that merely pointing out these variances is the same as actually making the suggestion that they may, in part, be faked. This is simply not true. As I have pointed out on several occasions whatever these variances indicate they are relevant and should have been noted a long time ago.

If, as has been suggested, they indicate a much later date of writing they are very relevant in that Swanson would have been much older and suffering from reduced or impaired faculties. The internal evidence shows that the endpaper notes, which are the most problematical, were written later than the marginalia at the bottom of page 138, thus adding support to this idea.


Hi Stewart

To me, the bottom line on this question of possible fakery is: who could possibly gain by faking the notes? No fortune could be made from them. Moreover, as has been discussed, the fact that the copy of Anderson's book was in the Swanson family the whole time precludes any monkey business. The notes might seem to be visibly at somewhat of a variance in appearance, as you say because a time gap between the annotations being made by Swanson, but that does not mean they are not genuine.

Best regards

Chris

[SPE]

Hi Stewart
To me, the bottom line on this question of possible fakery is: who could possibly gain by faking the notes? No fortune could be made from them. Moreover, as has been discussed, the fact that the copy of Anderson's book was in the Swanson family the whole time precludes any monkey business. The notes might seem to be visibly at somewhat of a variance in appearance, as you say because a time gap between the annotations being made by Swanson, but that does not mean they are not genuine.
Best regards
Chris

I am not arguing for fakery. However, as you raise the point, Jim Swanson was not paid a fortune for the newspaper piece and he was not short of money.

Had the question of motive for fakery arisen then the obvious reason would have been the kudos his grandfather received for 'solving' the great unsolved Ripper case. Indeed, one of the first things he said to me was that his grandfather had solved the case.

Further to this he even put into writing his reasons for disclosing the 'marginalia' as -

(1) To get some recognition of the part that my Grandfather had played.

(2) To put an end to all the fancyful [sic] conjecture concerning the killer and to make public the fact that the senior persons in Scotland Yard C.I.D. were satisfied that they knew who the Ripper was and that he had been safely put-away.

This acceptance of the identification seems to be a family tradition.

The Daily Telegraph of November 16, 2008 carried a letter from Jim's son Nevill and he stated "However, the identity was proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, at the time. My great grandfather, Donald Sutherland Swanson, was the detective in total charge of the Ripper murders. His private papers contain his handwritten identification of Aaron Kosminski [sic] as the Ripper."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Rob House has made some very pertinent observations as to the sequence in which the Swanson Marginalia was written and, thanks to his scans posted on Casebook, I have for the first time been able to clearly recognise the different pencils used and appreciate that certain sections may well have been written at different times.

Given that the Swanson Marginalia is genuine, is it your belief that, allowing for the vagaries of advancing age and deteriorating memory, it represents the truest and most accurate version of events involving the identification, incarceration and subsequent death of the "Ripper" and that his naming of Kosminski as the culprit should draw our mystery to a close?

Regards,

Simon

[SPE]

Hi Stewart,
Rob House has made some very pertinent observations as to the sequence in which the Swanson Marginalia was written and, thanks to his scans posted on Casebook, I have for the first time been able to clearly recognise the different pencils used and appreciate that certain sections may well have been written at different times.
Given that the Swanson Marginalia is genuine, is it your belief that, allowing for the vagaries of advancing age and deteriorating memory, it represents the truest and most accurate version of events involving the identification, incarceration and subsequent death of the "Ripper" and that his naming of Kosminski as the culprit should draw our mystery to a close?
Regards,
Simon

No, I do not believe that. I thought that I had written enough on this subject, not least of all in Scotland Yard Investigates, for everyone to know what I think.

I do not look upon Anderson, and Swanson, as being as reliable as some would have us believe and there are too many objections to the Aaron Kosminski scenario to accept him as the Ripper. Indeed, Martin Fido rejects him outright, whilst generally accepting what Anderson says.

Also there is no independent verification of any such identification taking place, and no other senior police officer of the time indicates that the identity of the murderer was known.

And my final word is that we will never draw this mystery to a close.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for your candid reply.

What, then, do you believe is the historical value of the Swanson Marginalia?

Regards,

Simon

[SPE]

Hi Stewart,
Many thanks for your candid reply.
What, then, do you believe is the historical value of the Swanson Marginalia?
Regards,
Simon

It is impossible to accurately assess the historical value of the marginalia as it depends upon the accuracy and reliability of both Anderson and Swanson. This is why both Martin and Paul have spent so much time in trying to establish the honesty, accuracy and veracity of Anderson. And there is no independent corroboration. I suppose that it could be argued that it represents the belief of both men at that time. Again, though, this would not allow for possible prevarication on their part.

[Jeff Leahy]

No, I do not believe that. I thought that I had written enough on this subject, not least of all in Scotland Yard Investigates, for everyone to know what I think.

I do not look upon Anderson, and Swanson, as being as reliable as some would have us believe and there are too many objections to the Aaron Kosminski scenario to accept him as the Ripper. Indeed, Martin Fido rejects him outright, whilst generally accepting what Anderson says.

Also there is no independent verification of any such identification taking place, and no other senior police officer of the time indicates that the identity of the murderer was known.

And my final word is that we will never draw this mystery to a close.

Surely Martin was working from what would now be seen as 'outdated' veiws on mental health. Where as Rob House is up to date and on the button?

Pirate

PS I thought the authenticity question had been put to bed?

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

Mr. Fido rejects Kosminski for reasons other than "outdated views on mental health" .... such as the fact Kosminski's name doesn't appear on asylum records in late 1888....but David Cohen's does.

[Jeff Leahy]

No martin thinks that Cohen's mental behaviour is more likely to be that of the Ripper than Aaron's. And modern study of schitzophrenia does not support that.

I site Peter Sutcliff.

Pirate

PS Can it also be noted that Paul Begg does NOT agree with me on this point. Ta

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

The reason Cohen surfaced in the first place was because when Mr. Fido scoured the asylum records some time ago, he was unable to find someone with that surname ( Kosminski) and developed the theory that the authorities were in error on the pronunciation of that surname...and that Cohen was one that fit the criteria the closest as far as an approximate surname and his violent behavior.

Whether Mr. Fido has other views on the matter is fine...but its not the primary reason as you suggest for the promotion of Cohen over Kosminski.

Yo..did you work on M.J. Trow's documentary which is coming up in two days?

Later...

[SPE]

...
Pirate
PS I thought the authenticity question had been put to bed?

Uncomfortable as you appear to be with this suggestion, you will find it will still be discussed. For those whom it suits will point out that very little can be categorically consigned to bed.

Oddly it is often the Swanson/Anderson supporters who raise the question. I have stated that there is nothing to support the contention and my arguments have always centred on the relevance of the use of a different pencil and the apparent deterioration in the handwriting.

As I have said, perhaps the report by Dr. Davies will be published some day, maybe in the new A-Z.

[Paul]

Jeff:

The reason Cohen surfaced in the first place was because when Mr. Fido scoured the asylum records some time ago, he was unable to find someone with that surname ( Kosminski) and developed the theory that the authorities were in error on the pronunciation of that surname...and that Cohen was one that fit the criteria the closest as far as an approximate surname and his violent behavior.

Whether Mr. Fido has other views on the matter is fine...but its not the primary reason as you suggest for the promotion of Cohen over Kosminski.

Jeff/Howard,
You are both correct. Originally Martin’s search through the asylum records failed to produce anyone named ‘Kosminski’ and Martin, believing that Anderson would not have lied about the Polish Jew suspect, concluded that the suspect would have to be in the records under another name. Of the Polish Jew patients he had come across, Cohen seemed to most probable candidate.

He subsequently found Aaron Kosminski in the asylum records, but dismissed him as Anderson’s suspect because he believed that Anderson’s suspect was Jack the Ripper, regarded Aaron Kosminski as a harmless, and therefore concluded that he could not have been Anderson’s suspect.

This was where Martin and I disagreed. Unlike Martin I did not and do not believe that Anderson's suspect was Jack the Ripper, therefore the suspect would not have necessarilly have displayed those traits Martin expected of Jack the Ripper and Kosminski could have been Anderson's suspect. Alternatively, of course, Martin could have been wrong either about Kosminski being harmless or about how Jack the Ripper would have behaved in the asylum.

Anyway, fellas, the point is that whilst Cohen's mental condition as reflected by his violent behaviour in the asylum was among the reasons why Martin favoured him as Anderson's suspect, it was not the primary reason. However, Aaron Kosminski's mental condition, as reflected by Martin's acceptance that he was harmless, was what led to his rejection of Kosminski as Anderson's suspect.

[Robert Linford]

Let's not tie Cohen too tightly to Anderson - I think he'd merit investigation even if Anderson, Swanson and the marginalia had never existed. The trouble is, we know virtually nothing about him.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to add that your thinking on this is completely out of date. Aaron’s behavior is completely consistent with what would be expected of someone suffering long-term schizophrenia. Indeed his symptoms are far more typical than those of Peter Sutcliff who is somewhat ‘old’ for a schizophrenic serial killer.

The point is not Aaron’s schizophrenic condition in 1891 or when he died, it’s his mental state in 1888 when it’s probable his psychotic episodes first began.

Pirate

PS the odds on the Marginalia being fake are about as probable as finding a monster in Lock Ness.:flame:

[Robert Linford]

Jeff, as I understand him, Stewart isn't arguing that the marginalia (if we can use that term to include the endnotes) are fake. Indeed he thinks they are probably genuine. But he isn't prepared to say that they're certainly genuine.

Re Aaron, he was walking a dog late 1889. From this one can deduce opposite conclusions :

1. He wasn't a shambling wreck then - so he could have committed the murders a year earlier.
2. He showed no signs of severe mental illness late 1889.

[Paul]

Jeff, as I understand him, Stewart isn't arguing that the marginalia (if we can use that term to include the endnotes) are fake. Indeed he thinks they are probably genuine. But he isn't prepared to say that they're certainly genuine.

Re Aaron, he was walking a dog late 1889. From this one can deduce opposite conclusions :

1. He wasn't a shambling wreck then - so he could have committed the murders a year earlier.
2. He showed no signs of severe mental illness late 1889.

Why are 1 and 2 opposite conclusions? If he wasn't a shambling wreck in 1888/89, then presumably he wasn't showing signs of severe mental illness. And committing the murders surely doesn't depend on him exhibiting signs of severe mental illness does it? Quite the reverse I'd have thought.

Even a lunatic can at times be capable of walking a dog, surely?

For what it's worth, Major Griffiths wrote in 1899: " One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum." That comment "having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies" is slightly odd - after what? After murdering five or theeabouts women he developed homicidal tendencies? Or that at some point after 1888 people began to recognise that he had homicidal tendencies? If the latter then he may well have shown no signs of severe mental illness in 1889.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

I meant, psychologically opposite - either supporting Aaron's candidacy or not, depending on whether a glass is seen as half full or half empty, and on what kind of murderer Jack is supposed to have been - organised or disorganised etc. Those who think the Ripper was disorganized will I suppose be disappointed by the dog walking, those who think he was a psychopath headed for an asylum would be pleased, but would rather he'd been a bit more stroppy.

Re Griffiths, if I had to interpret the passage just as it stands, I'd say he meant that the Polish Jew was a lunatic at the time of the murders, and that the words "at large" suggest that he'd either been released from or escaped from an asylum, or that he was living homeless or on his own. "At large" seems a strange description of a man living with his family. Griffiths says that he was a known lunatic, and that seems to suggest that he was known at the time for being a lunatic rather than that he afterwards was deemed to be one. I agree that the "homicidal tendences" that developed probably relate to overt homicidal behaviour subsequent to the murders.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes very interesting Paul.

Schizophrenia typically shows its first signs around late teens and early twenties. People suffering from the illness can often be high achievers; my brother who is an expert in the field see’s many university students. Schizophrenia often comes in waves covering periods around 16 weeks called psychotic episodes. Gaps between psychotic episodes can vary from individual to individual. However if left unchecked or treated these episodes will increase in frequency.

Bi and large schizophrenics are not dangerous; in fact they are largely a danger to themselves, being depressed and suicidal. However on rare occasions they can become extremely dangerous especially in the early stages of the illness on set. As it becomes more advanced they become less able to function.

By mid thirties schizophrenics reach a stage known as ‘burn out’ where they are largely cut of from the world of reality, often just sitting and steering unable to communicate. The waves stop.

So its more than probable that Aarons illness, especially at first, showed periods of almost normality. Today he would have been treated with modern drugs that alleviate the symptoms.

Yours Jeff

PS I’m well aware of SPE’s position which I have no problem with, it’s the Probably police that I object to. Putting the word ‘Probably’ in front of genuine is NOT necessary because we don’t do it with other historical documents or paintings.

We don’t go around saying here’s a painting ‘probably’ painted by Van Dyke, when an expert has authenticated it…. IT IS A VAN DYKE

[Paul]

Jeff,
I was making no observation whatsoever about the mental condition of anyone, just explaining to you and Howard that you were both right in what you thought about Martin: Martin's initial acceptance of Cohen was not wholly (or, perhaps, even largely) based on his mental condition, whereas Martin's rejection of Kosmisnki was based on his perception of Kosminski as harmless.

As for the marginalia, there seems little room to argue that it isn't genuine. Dr Davies seems pretty certain that it was all written by Swanson.
Paul

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul...

I guess it looks like I was replying to you but actually I was just saying I found your observations interesting. Full Stop.

And then replying about Schizophrenia in general, I havn't intended for it to reply to you...it's just my dodgy posting style.

Catch you soon

Jeff

[SPE]

...
...
Yours Jeff
PS I’m well aware of SPE’s position which I have no problem with, it’s the Probably police that I object to. Putting the word ‘Probably’ in front of genuine is NOT necessary because we don’t do it with other historical documents or paintings.
We don’t go around saying here’s a painting ‘probably’ painted by Van Dyke, when an expert has authenticated it…. IT IS A VAN DYKE

Well thank you for saying that you have no problem with my position.

Your argument with the word 'probably' is, as I understand it, that as an expert has authenticated the writing as all by Swanson, then it should be accepted as definitely written by Swanson. And, I suppose, that may be a reasonable view. However, in order to bring you to terms with the unfortunate problem you have with those qualifying it with the word 'probably', perhaps you should first try to understand their position. They may have good reason for being wary.

First, and most importantly, the said expert's report on the authentication has never been published, ergo the detractors have no idea of how positive the expert is with his authentication, nor are they aware of any caveats he may have included in the authentication. Also, as I understand it, the authentication is subject to a 'nine point conclusion scale' the result of which has also not been published.

It might be best if everyone waited for the publication of this report, that is if it is ever going to be published. And we've never seen the first report by Totty.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your argument with the word 'probably' is, as I understand it, that as an expert has authenticated the writing as all by Swanson, then it should be accepted as definitely written by Swanson. .

No that is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that all Historical Documents and Paintings are either Genuine or Fake. At some point an expert has given his qualified opinion. Indeed more than one expert might be involved.

However Hand writing analysis is NOT a science, its expert qualified opinion. A hand writing expert can NOT draw a conclusion of 100 % genuine. Its not within his trade. He can only state probability.

Balanced with other factors including provenance, experts draw their conclusion and pass their opinion.

All artifacts have a possibility of being Fake. However those possibilities become so remote that they are generally accepted for what they are, genuine.

We do not go around putting a prefix in front of every painting or historical document. The photo of Dutfeild Yard, do we prefix it with the word probably?

The Mona Lisa? was it 'probably' painted by Leonardo?

No we do not. Because the probability of Aliens wooshing down and taking Brain though outer space is so small that it does not require a prefix.

Anyone is free to express any doubts they like, feel free. Just dont tell me I need to use the word PROBABLY when I'm referencing the Marginalia.

The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise.

Pirate

PS I thought you said A report by Totty as you understood it didn't exist? Indeed I thought we had established that the original 'authentification was done within the resources available at the time?

[Sam Flynn]

The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise.
The fact of the matter, Jeff, is that the marginalia's genuineness is yet to be proven either way. Until definitive proof (as opposed to opinion) is forthcoming, nobody can make the assertion that "the marginalia is genuine" at all. For the same reason, nobody can yet say that the marginalia "are" fake, either... and I don't think anybody is.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Many genuine documents aren't worth the paper they're written on in terms of the veracity or accuracy of their content, so allow me to ask you the question I asked Stewart Evans—

Given that the Swanson Marginalia is genuine, is it your belief that, allowing for the vagaries of advancing age and deteriorating memory, it represents a true and accurate record of the identification, incarceration and subsequent death of Jack the Ripper, and that his naming of Kosminski as the culprit should draw our mystery to a close?

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

The fact of the matter, Jeff, is that the marginalia's genuineness is yet to be proven either way. Until definitive proof (as opposed to opinion) is forthcoming, nobody can make the assertion that "the marginalia is genuine" at all. For the same reason, nobody can yet say that the marginalia "are" fake, either... and I don't think anybody is.

The fact of the matter is that it has been subjected to the same observations that all historical artifacts go through and declared by experts as genuine.

If we follow your logic then every painting in the world is FAKE and the people who bought them have wasted their money. The only reason they aint crying is bacause they know they can still sell there paintings.

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Many genuine documents aren't worth the paper they're written on in terms of the veracity or accuracy of their content, so allow me to ask you the question I asked Stewart Evans—

Given that the Swanson Marginalia is genuine, is it your belief that, allowing for the vagaries of advancing age and deteriorating memory, it represents a true and accurate record of the identification, incarceration and subsequent death of Jack the Ripper, and that his naming of Kosminski as the culprit should draw our mystery to a close?

Regards,

Simon

If I said yes then that would be only my opinion. It certainly wouldnt be anyone elses.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks, I'll take that as a "yes". If your answer had been "no", why would it matter to you whether or not the marginalia was genuine?

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

If I could be so bold... Kosminski as a suspect appears as limp as his dick van dyke.
No amount of marginalia is going to prop that up.
I suggest viagra all round, then a good dog walk around Battersea, and finally retirement to a Police Home somewhere by the seaside, like Hyde Park.
If only they pushed their pencils harder.

[Jeff Leahy]

If I could be so bold... Kosminski as a suspect appears as limp as his dick van dyke.
No amount of marginalia is going to prop that up.
I suggest viagra all round, then a good dog walk around Battersea, and finally retirement to a Police Home somewhere by the seaside, like Hyde Park.
If only they pushed their pencils harder.

Great to have you on board captain. Trust you are well.

Pirate

PS I wouldnt take it as a yes until you had asked the right question.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Welcome back from Elba.

Good to know you brought a breath of fresh air with you.

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Thank you Pirate and Simon
Elba gave me the Elbow. Thank God. Drugs don't work.
It is fine and dandy that the Marginalia support Kosminski... but does Kosminski support the Marginalia?
As I said 'drugs don't work'.

[Jeff Leahy]

Thank you Pirate and Simon
Elba gave me the Elbow. Thank God. Drugs don't work.
It is fine and dandy that the Marginalia support Kosminski... but does Kosminski support the Marginalia?
As I said 'drugs don't work'.

Its just good to know you back and better.

We all know the problems with all the leading suspects. Thats what ripperology is about.

But its great to know the captain is back and feelin' better and I'm not just saying that cause i might need a favour.

Good to here from you AP

Pirate

[A.P. Wolf]

Thank you, Jeff, I'm much better.
For me Ripperology is all about walking the dog, and then ignoring the doggrel.

[Robert Linford]

Hi AP

Glad to see you back. I didn't know you'd been poorly.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Robert, I've been out of action for three months now, but I'm back, with a bone or two... and me teeth have been sharpened.

[Sam Flynn]

If we follow your logic then every painting in the world is FAKE.It doesn't follow that "every painting in the world is fake", because many paintings have a provenance which extends beyond "keeping it in the family". Some works of art have been in the public domain for many centuries; with others the author/artist is still alive, so we can get it from the horse's mouth - if one felt the need to go that far. Even then, it's worth remembering that some artefacts previously opined - by experts - to be genuine have been exposed as fakes by various chemical and/or physical tests.

The point I was making is that nobody can baldly state that the marginalia ARE genuine, anymore than one can say that they ARE fake, until and unless objective tests prove it one way or another. If objective tests aren't possible, then we're stuck with opinions, I'm afraid... and opinions (however well respected) really aren't the same as proof.

[A.P. Wolf]

But is it also not true, Sam, that fakery is half the magic and substance of reality, and that we will never have the power to pronounce on such substance, even as little as fifty years after events?

[Sam Flynn]

But is it also not true, Sam, that fakery is half the magic and substance of reality, and that we will never have the power to pronounce on such substance, even as little as fifty years after events?There are, of course, certain physical constraints over how we perceive the "real world", AP... but we have no choice in the matter, so we have to live with, and work within, the boundaries imposed by our senses. This much is common to all perceptions and judgments, so ultimately we're working from the same baseline. However, we can push that baseline at least a little closer to the "real world" by using physical and/or chemical tests and tools - many of which weren't around 50, or even 20, years ago.


PS: A big "welcome back" from me, too :)

[SirRobertAnderson]

I dunno....I always return to Littlechild and his comment that "Anderson only thought he knew."

Anderson thought he knew and said so without naming the suspect.

Swanson thought he knew and wrote it in the Marginalia.

Which one thought he knew by way of whom is nice to conjecture upon, but we're not gonna know either !

[SPE]

No that is not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that all Historical Documents and Paintings are either Genuine or Fake. At some point an expert has given his qualified opinion. Indeed more than one expert might be involved.
However Hand writing analysis is NOT a science, its expert qualified opinion. A hand writing expert can NOT draw a conclusion of 100 % genuine. Its not within his trade. He can only state probability.
Balanced with other factors including provenance, experts draw their conclusion and pass their opinion.
All artifacts have a possibility of being Fake. However those possibilities become so remote that they are generally accepted for what they are, genuine.
We do not go around putting a prefix in front of every painting or historical document. The photo of Dutfeild Yard, do we prefix it with the word probably?
The Mona Lisa? was it 'probably' painted by Leonardo?
No we do not. Because the probability of Aliens wooshing down and taking Brain though outer space is so small that it does not require a prefix.
Anyone is free to express any doubts they like, feel free. Just dont tell me I need to use the word PROBABLY when I'm referencing the Marginalia.
The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise.
Pirate
PS I thought you said A report by Totty as you understood it didn't exist? Indeed I thought we had established that the original 'authentification was done within the resources available at the time?

Let's look at the marginalia timeline -

1987 - It is first published in the Daily Telegraph.
1988 - It is first published in a Ripper book in Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts.
1991 - Author Paul Harrison in his book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved suggests the marginalia may not be genuine.
1991 - The A-Z tells us that the provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner. However nothing stating what the examiner actually did regarding his analysis or how he reached his conclusion is published - be it a letter or a report.
2000 - I see the marginalia and annotations for the first time and note that two different pencils have been used and there are minor differences in the handwriting at the bottom of page 138 compared with that on the rear free endpaper. This has not, apparently, been noticed before, nor has it been commented upon.
I do not have the date as I don't have the posts to hand but some time later I point out these problems on the Casebook site and I am aggressively addressed and a suggestion is made that I am committing libel.
2006 - The Swanson copy of Anderson's book containing the marginalia and annotations is deposited at New Scotland Yard's Crime Museum and is examined by their questioned document examiner Dr. Christopher Davies. He confirms my observations regarding the annotations and compiles a report. A press release gave bare details of this examination but the full report has never been published.

To accept the foregoing, i.e. the first result given second-hand in a Ripper book and the second result only partially reported in a newspaper, cannot be accepted as a proper confirmation of anything conclusive. It is totally unsatisfactory. It cannot be compared to historical documents, or paintings, where proper, full testing and documentation has been published.

Quite frankly I regard your response as childish and totally unsatisfactory.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thank you, Sam, I'm touched by your kind comment.
But I think what I'm saying is that if the suspect is a complete and utter waste of time and space to consider, from the facts of the matter, then why consider what people of the age and time may have considered as prospect to their gold mine?
They may have mined it, but gold was lacking.
Fool's gold I s'pose.

[Jeff Leahy]

There are, of course, certain physical constraints over how we perceive the "real world", AP... but we have no choice in the matter, so we have to live with, and work within, the boundaries imposed by our senses. This much is common to all perceptions and judgments, so ultimately we're working from the same baseline. However, we can push that baseline at least a little closer to the "real world" by using physical and/or chemical tests and tools - many of which weren't around 50, or even 20, years ago.


PS: A big "welcome back" from me, too :)


Are you saying sam that the opinion of Dr Davis is NOT good enough?

Because surely that is all we have? ..well apart from the opinion of Totty...oh yes and the opinion of those authorities that have studied the provenance...

There simply are NO 100% guarantees. Even those documents that you have formed your view of history about might come crashing down around you.

Science brings us proof, Hand writing analysis only brings us heart break.

At the end of all such debates we must face our GOD. Or lack of him.

Pirate

[SPE]

...
We do not go around putting a prefix in front of every painting or historical document. The photo of Dutfeild Yard, do we prefix it with the word probably?
The Mona Lisa? was it 'probably' painted by Leonardo?
No we do not. Because the probability of Aliens wooshing down and taking Brain though outer space is so small that it does not require a prefix.
Anyone is free to express any doubts they like, feel free. Just dont tell me I need to use the word PROBABLY when I'm referencing the Marginalia.
The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise.
Pirate
...


Regarding the word 'probably' that you so energetically object to in this context (see above) and the fact that you so forcefully feel that it should not prefix the statement that the handwriting is Swanson's, perhaps you should contact Dr. Davies immediately and tell him not to do it. Below is an extract from his comments on the annotations that appeared in the South London Press on January 19, 2007. Fancy him saying that the writing "probably was Swanson's", he really must be a disappointment to you.
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/daviescomment.jpg

[Jeff Leahy]

Let's look at the marginalia timeline -

1987 - It is first published in the Daily Telegraph.
1988 - It is first published in a Ripper book in Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts.
1991 - Author Paul Harrison in his book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved suggests the marginalia may not be genuine.
1991 - The A-Z tells us that the provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner. However nothing stating what the examiner actually did regarding his analysis or how he reached his conclusion is published - be it a letter or a report.
2000 - I see the marginalia and annotations for the first time and note that two different pencils have been used and there are minor differences in the handwriting at the bottom of page 138 compared with that on the rear free endpaper. This has not, apparently, been noticed before, nor has it been commented upon.
I do not have the date as I don't have the posts to hand but some time later I point out these problems on the Casebook site and I am aggressively addressed and a suggestion is made that I am committing libel.
2006 - The Swanson copy of Anderson's book containing the marginalia and annotations is deposited at New Scotland Yard's Crime Museum and is examined by their questioned document examiner Dr. Christopher Davies. He confirms my observations regarding the annotations and compiles a report. A press release gave bare details of this examination but the full report has never been published.

To accept the foregoing, i.e. the first result given second-hand in a Ripper book and the second result only partially reported in a newspaper, cannot be accepted as a proper confirmation of anything conclusive. It is totally unsatisfactory. It cannot be compared to historical documents, or paintings, where proper, full testing and documentation has been published.

Quite frankly I regard your response as childish and totally unsatisfactory.

Well of cause you would. But then apparently it is those that support Anderson’s claims that, apparently make the most noise about the Marginalia’s authenticity not those that seek to discredit Anderson?

So perhaps there is a fundamental contradiction in this post?

Pirate

[A.P. Wolf]

So he has sunk fourteen gins and is claiming a pint of Carling, SPE?
Wot a bastard.

[Jeff Leahy]

Regarding the word 'probably' that you so energetically object to in this context (see above) and the fact that you so forcefully feel that it should not prefix the statement that the handwriting is Swanson's, perhaps you should contact Dr. Davies immediately and tell him not to do it. Below is an extract from his comments on the annotations that appeared in the South London Press on January 19, 2007. Fancy him saying that the writing "probably was Swanson's", he really must be a disappointment to you.

6924

Yes, I think you have something there, a most satisfactory idea, and an interview I'm sure we would all want to watch. Unless that damn A to Z gets there first of course.

Pirate

PS are you saying that their is a hand writing expert that can give a 100% guarantee? do you have his or her phone number?

[SPE]

Yes, I think you have something there, a most satisfactory idea, and an interview I'm sure we would all want to watch. Unless that damn A to Z gets there first of course.
Pirate

Your response is a total nonsense. For the umpteenth time I have not suggested the annotations are faked. This discussion has been about other people using the prefix 'probably'. I merely sought to show that if they used the word 'probably', then it was probably justified - especially as Dr. Davies uses it himself.

I think that you have worked yourself into a corner here and your arguments have become exceedingly silly. Dr. Davies also stated, according to the press reports, (and Ripperologist incidentally), "It is most likely to be Swanson, but I'm sure the report will be cause for lively debate among those interested in the case." He was right there - he must have known that you would be taking part.

[SPE]

...
Pirate
PS are you saying that their is a hand writing expert that can give a 100% guarantee? do you have his or her phone number?

Did I say or even suggest that??? Unlike you I have worked on cases involving proper forensic document and handwriting examination and I have the 35-page Home Office guidelines for this work.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your response is a total nonsense. For the umpteenth time I have not suggested the annotations are faked. This discussion has been about other people using the prefix 'probably'. I merely sought to show that if they used the word 'probably', then it was probably justified - especially as Dr. Davies uses it himself.

I think that you have worked yourself into a corner here and your arguments have become exceedingly silly. Dr. Davies also stated, according to the press reports, (and Ripperologist incidentally), "It is most likely to be Swanson, but I'm sure the report will be cause for lively debate among those interested in the case." He was right there - he must have known that you would be taking part.

You simply don't get it do you SPE.

The word 'PROBABLY' is the only word that DR Davis could have used. Because hand writing analysis is expert opinion Not science.

All Dr Davis can give is qualified PROBABILITY

He can not say that anything is 100% genuine.

And what I am saying is if I get an interview I would hope to confirm his PRIVATE opinion NOT his professional opinion, which by its fundermental constrainsts mean that percentages of probability are involved.

Pirate

[A.P. Wolf]

'Probably' and 'most likely' sort of means a thousand monkeys might have scratched a blunt pencil on some very sharp paper back then, doesn't it?

[Jeff Leahy]

Did I say or even suggest that??? Unlike you I have worked on cases involving proper forensic document and handwriting examination and I have the 35-page Home Office guidelines for this work.

Yes documents probably financed by me the TAX payer not small time historians faced by limited resources.

Pirate

[SPE]

You simply don't get it do you SPE.
The word 'PROBABLY' is the only word that DR Davis could have used. Because hand writing analysis is expert opinion Not science.
All Dr Davis can give is qualified PROBABILITY
He can not say that anything is 100% genuine.
And what I am saying is if I get an interview I would hope to confirm his PIVATE opinion NOT his professional opinion, which by its fundermental constrainsts mean that percentages of probability are involved.
Pirate

Oh yes, I do get it. You have been proved totally wrong for saying people should not state that the annotations were 'probably' by Swanson (because, you say, they are genuine). You are getting sillier and sillier. Time to bail out methinks.

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

SPE has already provided his position and so had you. Drop it.

Thank you.

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh yes, I do get it. You have been proved totally wrong for saying people should not state that the annotations were 'probably' by Swanson (because, you say, they are genuine). You are getting sillier and sillier. Time to bail out methinks.

I simply fail to see why you are all having so much problem with something that is so basically simple:

Hand writing analysis is NOT a science it is qualified professional opinion.

Do any of you have a problem with that statement?

It is therefore blatantly obvious that DR Davis can not say anything he examines is 100% genuine. He cam only give an opinion or probability of it being genuine. In all other cases that opinion is accepted.

The fact that you may or may not choose to do so is up to you.

I DONT CARE.

However until someone can prove otherwise the Marginalia is simply GENUINE, and no matter how many weaseled words you may wish to use, it is as any other historical document of its kind.

Pirate

Howard is this an official warning?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If we believe Anderson's contention on Page 137 of TLSOMOL that the last JtR murder was Millers Court, that "the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand", and also believe that Swanson's marginalia was an endorsement of his opinion, then the Anderson/Swanson low-class Polish Jew/Kosminski/asylum/seaside home/murders ceasing story must have taken place between 9th November 1888 and 17th July 1889. Even Macnaghten later concurred. In his 1894 memorandum he dated Kosminski's removal to an asylum as March 1889.

It's the nearest thing to consensus we have amongst the top cops.

But even had this identification taken place in March 1889, soon after which Kosminski died and the upper echelons of Scotland Yard breathed a sigh of relief at JtR's demise, we have to ask why, almost two years later, in February 1891, Joseph Lawende was asked if he could identify Sadler as the man he saw with Eddowes in Church Passage on 30th September 1888.

The question of the Swanson Marginalia being genuine or a forgery is a bit of a red herring given the rather obvious illogicality of its subject matter in the light of later events. It seems to me that if the marginalia is genuine, then Swanson was talking out the back of his hat. And if it's a forgery, then the forger[s] didn't do his/their homework very well.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

.. . But even had this identification taken place in March 1889, soon after which Kosminski died and the upper echelons of Scotland Yard breathed a sigh of relief . . . .

Simon

Simon, you probably already know this but here's the timeline--

4 February 1891. Aaron Kosminski was returned to the Mile End Old Town Workhouse.

7 February 1891. Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch Asylum.

13 April 1894. Kosminski was transferred to Leavesden Asylum for Imbeciles.

24 March 1919. He died at Leavesden Asylum.

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the timeline.

No disrespect, but like so many people you're confusing facts with the BS that was being put out by the top cops.

Concentrate on the Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten narrative. It's illogical.

Regards,

Simon

[SPE]

For those still interested here are my 2000, full-page, photographs of the Swanson annotations (with no adjustment). It will be seen how faint the writing is.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aswansonannotations.jpg

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Simon

I believe that Rob House made an interesting observation.

As we know schizophrenia is an illness that starts in waves. Usually covering periods around 16 weeks. That means that for all intensive purpose the sufferer appears to get better, at least for periods of time. It was therefore possible for people suffering the condition to be committed and released. At least in the early stages of the illness. Interestingly if you do the Maths 16 weeks after the murders stop...then March 1889 would be a good time for the illness to re-appear. He could be out by July.

Rob suggested the possibility that Aaron had been committed at an earlier date and released from the asylum. This would actually make some sense about the date mix up’s. However to my knowledge no one has ever found an entry for a Kosminski at another asylum. That said his name didn’t show up before. Also doesn’t Cox state that the man he watched was locked in an asylum in Surry?

While it has never been proved, Aaron being committed and released at an earlier time would make much sense of the confusion.

Pirate

PS Howard, I have no problem with SPE taking any position he likes, I am simply asking everyone else to except my position that I only intend to use the word 'Probably', when siting the marginalia, when directly quoting Dr Davis.

[Paul]

Concentrate on the Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten narrative. It's illogical.

The indications are that a man named Kosminski was suspected of being Jack the Ripper - he is named and stated as such by both Swanson and Macnaghten - and is identified by Swanson as the unnamed suspect Anderson claimed was positively identified by an eye-witness, an identification Swanson appears to confirm took place. Broadly speaking, therefore, either none of this actually happened and we can dismiss it all, but as yet nobody has presented any likely scenario for this being the case. Or the events described took place along the lines described - there was a suspect, there was a witness and there was an identification. Whether our understanding of what actually happened as understood from the primary sources is concerned is illogical or not, what we're told happened, or something tolerably like it, actually happened. Surely the historian's job is to try and make sense out of the diverse and disparate 'evidence' at our disposal, and if he can't make sense of it because there is insufficient information, to note it. We don't dismiss it because we can't understand it, do we?

[SPE]

...
there was a suspect, there was a witness and there was an identification. ...

As regards this oft-repeated mantra, the following should be borne in mind -

Yes, there was a suspect named 'Kosminski', albeit there was 'no shadow of proof' against him according to Macnaghten. There is no other official mention of him.

There was a witness according to Anderson in his boastful book of 1910 and Swanson in his scribbled annotations in the same book.

Caveats to be remembered regarding these Anderson and Swanson 'primary sources' are that we know that no one witnessed any Ripper murder and there are anomalies impairing these sources. They rely totally on the accuracy, veracity and trustworthiness of recollection of the two men, as both references are made in 1910 and later, many years after the event.

Do you not think that historians have spent many years 'trying to make sense out of the diverse and disparate 'evidence' at our disposal'? I certainly have not dismissed it out of hand, I have suggested plausible explanations to address it. You obviously don't agree - but you wouldn't, would you?

The only properly qualified historian to have considered the facts and then published his answer to the story is Phil Sugden. And he dismisses it.

[Big Jon]

PS Howard, I have no problem with SPE taking any position he likes, I am simply asking everyone else to except my position that I only intend to use the word 'Probably', when siting the marginalia, when directly quoting Dr Davis.

Thank you Jeff, you've made your position quite clear, now please drop it.

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the timeline.

No disrespect, but like so many people you're confusing facts with the BS that was being put out by the top cops.

Concentrate on the Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten narrative. It's illogical.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Yes I agree that what we have from Macnaghten and his acolytes is muddled and riddled with errors -- for example that Druitt was a doctor and that he drowned himself right after killing Mary Jane Kelly in Miller's Court. Implying that he had driven himself into such a blood-drenched mad frenzy that he had to kill himself. But what "kills" that theory is that he waited three weeks to top himself. Hmmmmmm.

Anderson/Swanson might be equally questionable, given that, as SPE has written, these men were remembering "facts" from years before. Yes, as Paul says, there may have been an attempted identification, or indeed more than one such attempt. Yet it might not have happened quite like they said it did, and the way it is described by Anderson and backed up by Swanson makes no allowance for the Jewish element and the Jewish character. That is, for example, you might recognize a person and still not think they were the murderer, or you think it better not to get involved, partly for reasons that have to do with the long, traumatic history of the Jews. The behavior of Lawende's companions on the pertinent night would seem to fall into the latter category.

All the best

Chris

[Howard Brown]

PS Howard, I have no problem with SPE taking any position he likes, I am simply asking everyone else to accept my position that I only intend to use the word 'Probably', when siting the marginalia, when directly quoting Dr Davis.-Jeff

Jeff.....thats not how it was understood,pal. It appeared as if you were demanding a fellow Forums member to accept your perception of the SM, which no one is obligated to do. I agree with you that its very likely that the SM reflected the facts according to the way that DSS percieved them at the time they were placed on the pages of his copy of SRA's book. We do not agree that anyone else has to maintain that position or even pay tribute to it. Hopefully,we can now focus on the interesting discussion that has piqued everyone's attention for its importance and not the minor dispute we had, which has now smoothed over. Thank you. Your input on the SM is just as valuable as anyone else's and is as equally encouraged.

[Howard Brown]

Jeff:

Thanks for mentioning Cox's remark on a lunatic housed in Surrey. Ironically, Ostrog was in an asylum in Surrey in 1891...just as a bit of trivia.

It might be worthwhile to go back ( for the interested folks that is...I am sure that Chris Phillips, at least, thought of this before...) and examine asylum records outside London's boundaries for someone with a surname similar to Kosminski....or maybe even inside. Some researchers may be pressed for time and lack the resources...

I'd suggest contacting Silverstealth on this issue.

Thanks again for mentioning what you did,Jeff.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Howard

Yes I have been ticked off before for not making myself clear and certainly I have no intension of being rude, just trying to make my point. However consider it dropped guys.

Incidentally I am in total agreement with SPE that it would be useful to get Dr Davis comments clarified, it is something I have taken on board, because why I don’t always agree with SPE, I do have utmost respect for his knowledge and understanding of the case, and I am happy to take his advice where it seems pertinent to do so.

Yours Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Are you saying sam that the opinion of Dr Davis is NOT good enough?
Opinions are not "proof"... that's all I'm saying, Jeff. What I've said can by no means be construed as a value-judgment of Dr Davis' opinions or anybody else's.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Sam

I have been asked by admin to drop it. I am therefore put in a catch twenty-two of being rude if I do not respond to you and appearing rude if I do.

I will therefore state a point of fact:

Hand writing analysis is not a science it is expert qualified opinion. Dr Davis expert opinion is excepted as admissible evidence in court, therefore his opinion can be considered more important than yours or mine.

I am now asking as a friend if we can leave it at that, as I have no wish to upset Howard or Admin on this site as my communication options are running low. Plus I have some work to finish.

Many thanks

Jeff

[Paul]

As regards this oft-repeated mantra, the following should be borne in mind -

Yes, there was a suspect named 'Kosminski', albeit there was 'no shadow of proof' against him according to Macnaghten. There is no other official mention of him.

There was a witness according to Anderson in his boastful book of 1910 and Swanson in his scribbled annotations in the same book.

Caveats to be remembered regarding these Anderson and Swanson 'primary sources' are that we know that no one witnessed any Ripper murder and there are anomalies impairing these sources. They rely totally on the accuracy, veracity and trustworthiness of recollection of the two men, as both references are made in 1910 and later, many years after the event.

Do you not think that historians have spent many years 'trying to make sense out of the diverse and disparate 'evidence' at our disposal'? I certainly have not dismissed it out of hand, I have suggested plausible explanations to address it. You obviously don't agree - but you wouldn't, would you?

The only properly qualified historian to have considered the facts and then published his answer to the story is Phil Sugden. And he dismisses it.

Well, Stewart, let me address some of these points.

That there is no other official mention of Kosminski is wholly irrelevant. There is no other official mention of Druitt either, or Tumblety, or, no doubt, numerous other individuals upon whom suspicion fell at one time or another. There is an extreme paucity of official documentation, so the absence of information is to be expected rather than otherwise.

You use perjorative words like 'boastful' and 'scribbled annotations', yet Anderson's book was no more boastful than other books of that sort at the time and you have no idea whether Swanson's notes were scribbed or written with great care and much considered thought.

Your caveats are obvious, apply to many sources, both Ripperological and otherwise, and historians are well able to deal with them. And they have been dealt with. For example, although no witness saw a victim actually being murdered, several witnesses saw a woman who was probably a victim with a man who timings alone make it almost certain was the person who murdered them.

If you had suggested plausible explanations then I most certainly would agree. I do not find your explanations particularly plausible and your insinuation that this is because I am biased is incorrect, insulting and tiresome.

The fact that Phil Sugden is a properly qualified historian - although in what, where and when he qualified is something I do not know - is neither here nor there. There are plenty of properly qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusion about all manner of things. And Martin Fido, who is also academically qualified and perhaps better academically qualified than Phil Sugden, disagrees with him, so it's all a pretty empty argument. But Phil dismisses the story largely because he has or had an aversion to autobiography, correctly believing that it largely reflected the perspective of the writer, and because he believed that by 1910 Anderson was geriatrically wishfully thinking, an opinion not really supported by any independent evidence (and please don't quote H.L. Adam back at me) and necessitating the acceptance that Swanson was ga-ga too, which equally lacked independent support.

And as much as you like to describe it as a 'mantra', we basically have a very simple problem: either Anderson and Swanson were to all intents and purposes lying, or there was a suspect, a witness and an identification. Whether it all panned out as described by those sources is an altogether different question.

[Sam Flynn]

I have been asked by admin to drop it. I am therefore put in a catch twenty-two of being rude if I do not respond to you and appearing rude if I do.I don't see that there'd be any reason to be combative or argumentative over a simple statement of fact, Jeff - namely, that "opinion is not the same as proof" - so we should be on safe ground here. Hand writing analysis is not a science it is expert qualified opinion. Dr Davis expert opinion is excepted as admissible evidence in court, therefore his opinion can be considered more important than yours or mine.
Indeed, but that's something else entirely. I have not once questioned the value of Dr Davis's opinion, nor anybody else's for that matter.

[Paul]

Opinions are not "proof"... that's all I'm saying, Jeff. What I've said can by no means be construed as a value-judgment of Dr Davis' opinions or anybody else's.

Hi Sam,
Opinions aren't proof. True enough. But what would constitute proof? Unless you actually saw the event - and even then your account would be called into question and it would be pointed out that eye-witness testimony is unreliable - what evidence could be brought forth to prove the event took place? Isn't the reality that we accept the expert opinion, and in so doing we accept that it is subject to change?

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't the reality that we accept the expert opinion, and in so doing we accept that it is subject to change?That may well be the case, Paul - it certainly seems to be the situation we're stuck with! - although I would say that it's pretty much down to the individual whether they accept the expert opinion or not. However good that expert opinion is, it doesn't empower any of us to make the assertion, "The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise". That's what was written yesterday, by dear old - sorry, young! - Jeff, and I felt compelled to respond to it.

[SPE]

Well, Stewart, let me address some of these points.
That there is no other official mention of Kosminski is wholly irrelevant. There is no other official mention of Druitt either, or Tumblety, or, no doubt, numerous other individuals upon whom suspicion fell at one time or another. There is an extreme paucity of official documentation, so the absence of information is to be expected rather than otherwise.
You use perjorative words like 'boastful' and 'scribbled annotations', yet Anderson's book was no more boastful than other books of that sort at the time and you have no idea whether Swanson's notes were scribbed or written with great care and much considered thought.
Your caveats are obvious, apply to many sources, both Ripperological and otherwise, and historians are well able to deal with them. And they have been dealt with. For example, although no witness saw a victim actually being murdered, several witnesses saw a woman who was probably a victim with a man who timings alone make it almost certain was the person who murdered them.
If you had suggested plausible explanations then I most certainly would agree. I do not find your explanations particularly plausible and your insinuation that this is because I am biased is incorrect, insulting and tiresome.
The fact that Phil Sugden is a properly qualified historian - although in what, where and when he qualified is something I do not know - is neither here nor there. There are plenty of properly qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusion about all manner of things. And Martin Fido, who is also academically qualified and perhaps better academically qualified than Phil Sugden, disagrees with him, so it's all a pretty empty argument. But Phil dismisses the story largely because he has or had an aversion to autobiography, correctly believing that it largely reflected the perspective of the writer, and because he believed that by 1910 Anderson was geriatrically wishfully thinking, an opinion not really supported by any independent evidence (and please don't quote H.L. Adam back at me) and necessitating the acceptance that Swanson was ga-ga too, which equally lacked independent support.
And as much as you like to describe it as a 'mantra', we basically have a very simple problem: either Anderson and Swanson were to all intents and purposes lying, or there was a suspect, a witness and an identification. Whether it all panned out as described by those sources is an altogether different question.

Thank you Paul for your considered response, I reply as follows.

It is pointless to state the obvious that there is no other official mention of Druitt or Tumblety - for, as with Kosminski, there was no hard evidence against either of them. Kosminski is no better or worse in this sense than anyone else. However, I am not sure that anyone has made the sustained and persistent claims for any other suspect the way that you have with regard to Kosminski. And it is in no way a personal attack nor is it an insult to say that an examination of your past published works reveals that you have a distinct Anderson/Kosminski bias. If I was the only one who thought that then I would take stock of what I was thinking. But many, many others, amongst them leading authorities, think the same.

You say that my use of the words 'boastful' and 'scribbled' is pejorative but I do not agree. To say that Anderson's book is boastful is stating a fact, and people I know who have read it agree that the man boasted a lot (and that has nothing to do with other books written at the time, some of which were undoubtedly also boastful - Anderson himself was still boastful). As for Swanson's annotations being scribbled, I guess that is a matter of subjective opinion, and my use of the word here may well have been unfair.

Surely my caveats do apply to other sources - but we are not discussing other sources here - the caveats still stand in relation to the Anderson/Swanson claims. You say that historians 'are well able to deal with them', and so they may be if they stand back and remain totally objective. Indeed, you put the lie to this yourself when you state, two paragraphs later that "There are plenty of qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusion about all manner of things." There are obviously 'plenty of historians' who are not 'well able to deal' with such caveats. The only witnesses, historically, who your description could fit would be Schwartz and Lawende, and I am not sure where the 'several witnesses' comes in.

Regarding my explanations, you state that you do not 'find my explanations particularly plausible' and that is purely subjective; you would find that, wouldn't you. I do not understand what you say you find 'insulting and tiresome' as I do not think that I have deliberately been insulting to you, and I know many people who think you are biased. Indeed, I think that most of us may be biased one way or another. In the past I have pointed out where you have been insulting to me, your Anderson article in Ripperologist and the review of our book being examples. But I am sure you will say that is not the case and I am being paranoid. I might agree if I was the only person who thought so. And I have had at least two leading Ripper authorities tell me that they think the explanation I give in the Anderson chapter in Scotland Yard Investigates is the best they have seen.

Philip Sugden is a properly qualified academic historian and that is something that Martin, you and I are not. Yes Martin Fido is academically qualified, but not, I believe, in the reading of history. Indeed he has made some significant errors in his interpretation of the historical sources (as you have too), his assessment of the Anderson-Smith relationship being one. I don't need to quote references to you on the state of Anderson's mind - it has all been done before and is old hat and boring to keep repeating. We, simply, will never agree on certain things.

'We' do not have 'a very simple problem' - you do, in selling your ideas about the plausibility of your whole scenario.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't see that there'd be any reason to be combative or argumentative over a simple statement of fact, Jeff - namely, that "opinion is not the same as proof" - so we should be on safe ground here.


Yes I agree. Opinion is not the same as proof. It is subject to human error. My point is simply that 'opinion' is all that we have for the authenticity of any historical document or work of art. Because it is by professionally qualified opinion and provenance that we draw a conclusion on any artifact being either fake or genuine. Thus all artifacts have a probability factor of not being genuine. However we do not prefix them with the word 'Probably genuine' we accept them as genuine because expert opinion (subject to human error that it must be) has authenticated it.

Do you know the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo De Vinci ? Have you proof or qualified professional opinion?

Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

Do you know the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo De Vinci ? Have you proof or qualified professional opinion?
Whether the Mona Lisa was painted by da Vinci or not has nothing at all to do with the Swanson Marginalia, Jeff. Each artefact must be assessed on its own merits.

[SPE]

...
... correctly believing that it largely reflected the perspective of the writer, and because he believed that by 1910 Anderson was geriatrically wishfully thinking, an opinion not really supported by any independent evidence (and please don't quote H.L. Adam back at me) and necessitating the acceptance that Swanson was ga-ga too, which equally lacked independent support.


I must take issue with this particular contention. I think that Phil Sugden is particularly generous to Anderson in not opting for 'a wilful intent to deceive' on Anderson's part, but, instead, adopting the 'softer' notion that it was 'wishful thinking'.

Philip also pointed out the 'selective and faulty memory characteristic of advancing age.' Phil and I discussed this very symptom of advancing age just a couple of weeks ago, Phil citing a couple of notable examples. The memory and brainpower of all of us suffers as we get older. It has nothing to do with 'ga-ga' as you so picturesquely put it. It is something experienced by most people as they grow older, often at different ages depending upon the individual involved.

I recall that Martin, to his credit on the boards, often honestly admitted how his memory wasn't what it used to be. And, horror of horrors, my own memory is not what it used to be, I know what Martin means. Or are you suggesting that Anderson, by 1910 almost at his 'three score years and ten', was above such human weakness?

[Jeff Leahy]

That may well be the case, Paul - it certainly seems to be the situation we're stuck with! - although I would say that it's pretty much down to the individual whether they accept the expert opinion or not. However good that expert opinion is, it doesn't empower any of us to make the assertion, "The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise". That's what was written yesterday, by dear old - sorry, young! - Jeff, and I felt compelled to respond to it.

Then I think you've miss understood what I was saying.

I was saying that the marginalia has been established as genuine, in as far as any artifact can be established as such.

My logic is that we do not prefix the word 'Probably' on other artifacts therefore it does not make logical sense to do so when mentioning the marginalia, unless directly quoting Dr Davis.

As you have pointed the Marginalia either is or is NOT genuine. I have no problem with anyone believing what they wish in either direction or indeed stating what they wish.

I am simply stating that when I choose to reference the marginalia I can not see the point of prefixing the word 'PROBABLY' and feel justified referring to it for what it is.

All historical artifacts have a probability of being fake or genuine. They are in fact either one or the other but we have no way of telling for certain because we can only tell via 'qualified professional opinion' which as we have established is subject to human error.

I'm not telling anyone how they should refer to the Marginalia, I'm simply expressing my right to express myself as I see the subject requires.

Most interesting discussion, many thanks to all concerned.

Pirate

PS thanks for the 'young', i am indeed in need of hoping to think so.

[Robert Linford]

I'm sure Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. I'm pretty confident he painted La Gioconda too. Double Event!

[Sam Flynn]

I was saying that the marginalia has been established as genuine, in as far as any artifact can be established as such.
Have they, though, Jeff? I'm sure a lot more analysis could be done, if required... not least on what might constitute "genuineness", in all its aspects. I sense that some good folks might construe any doubt being cast on the marginalia as suggesting a hoax - i.e. that Swanson didn't write them at all - but it's more subtle than that, as we've seen. Specifically, one can fully believe that the marginalia were written by Swanson, whilst acknowledging the possibility that different parts were penned (by him) at radically different times. Clearly, therefore, limiting the analysis to the provenance and/or authorship of the marginalia is only addressing two aspects of the problem. There's much more to it than that.

[SPE]

Have they, though, Jeff? I'm sure a lot more analysis could be done, if required... not least on what might constitute "genuineness", in all its aspects. I sense that some good folks might construe any doubt being cast on the marginalia as suggesting a hoax - i.e. that Swanson didn't write them at all - but it's more subtle than that, as we've seen. Specifically, one can fully believe that the marginalia were written by Swanson, whilst acknowledging the possibility that different parts were penned (by him) at radically different times. Clearly, therefore, limiting the analysis to the provenance and/or authorship of the marginalia is only addressing two aspects of the problem. There's much more to it than that.


A point that I have been trying to make all along Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

A point that I have been trying to make all along Gareth.
Indeed, Stewart, and a valid point it is. Thanks.

[Howard Brown]

A few posts back, Mr. Begg alluded to the (often) suggested condition of both DSS and SRA suffering some sort of mnemonical failure at the same time. Not that Mr. Begg suggests it to be the case in the slightest, but this does surface when discussion over the SM arises on numerous occasions.

I personally think another condition needs to be considered in that there is no concrete evidence that either official participated in or were present at the identification. If that is the case, if that could be how this entire affair really went down, it is therefore entirely possible that both DSS and SRA were only parroting what they were told...hence the similarity of the annotations on DSS' book to the declarations made by SRA.

In other words....for Jeff in particular....despite the probable or more likely scenario of DSS actually annotating his books....its still not a definite fact that what is written in DSS' copy of SRA's work that he is doing anything more than repeating what he was told and did not in reality attend. Same for SRA.

Thems my 2 cents.

[Paul]

That may well be the case, Paul - it certainly seems to be the situation we're stuck with! - although I would say that it's pretty much down to the individual whether they accept the expert opinion or not. However good that expert opinion is, it doesn't empower any of us to make the assertion, "The marginalia is GENUINE. It's up to someone else to prove other wise". That's what was written yesterday, by dear old - sorry, young! - Jeff, and I felt compelled to respond to it.

Maybe it's a case of everyone getting over precise about the meaning of words instead of their intent, and the message boards would be a miserable place if we had to watch our words with such extreme care - not, of course, that I am advocating sloppiness or anything like that.

In the case of authentication of artefacts, where so much depends on opinion and inference, the situation has got so bad that no professional will ever make a definitive statement about anything, but always looks for and mentions caveats, no matter how improbable, just in case sometime down the line the thing is shown for some reason to be a fake. That leaves the rest of us to read between the lines, which is particularly difficult for museums and collectors who are maybe going to fork out millions for some manuscript or painting or whatever on the strength of the authenticator's report.

[Paul]

I'm sure Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. I'm pretty confident he painted La Gioconda too. Double Event!

What! Both at the same time?

[SPE]

What! Both at the same time?

Perhaps he was ambidextrous!

[Robert Linford]

No Paul, he was interrupted on the Mona - he hadn't quite got the smile right - and went off in a fury, determined to paint another one.

[Howard Brown]

Man, are you a dummy Robert.:fish:!!!

DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa and wrote that book about his codes or something.

[Paul]

Have they, though, Jeff? I'm sure a lot more analysis could be done, if required... not least on what might constitute "genuineness", in all its aspects. I sense that some good folks might construe any doubt being cast on the marginalia as suggesting a hoax - i.e. that Swanson didn't write them at all - but it's more subtle than that, as we've seen. Specifically, one can fully believe that the marginalia were written by Swanson, whilst acknowledging the possibility that different parts were penned (by him) at radically different times. Clearly, therefore, limiting the analysis to the provenance and/or authorship of the marginalia is only addressing two aspects of the problem. There's much more to it than that.

I suspect that it might be even more complicated than that. For example, why is it supposed that the two parts were written at radically different times? A slight shakiness in one lot of handwriting could indicate a motor disorder which could suggest that the writer was several years older when he wrote it than when he wrote the other lot. But how does one distinguish between a slight shakiness due to a motor disorder from a shakiness caused by a change of writing surface - say from a desk to the arm of a chair or even in bed - and/or by the writing being done at different times of the day or before or after some physical activity? And it may be that the answer to this may boil down to opinion, which turn raises the question of how long and how far is it accepatble to question the general, if not altogether 100%, conclusion that the document was written by Swanson?

[A.P. Wolf]

Personally I have always held that the personal ravings of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson - and even Littlechild - are nowt but simple disinformation to promote and see prosper the very type of confusion we see on these message boards today over 100 years later.
Those boys sowed a deadly crop and we reap little.

[Paul]

A few posts back, Mr. Begg alluded to the (often) suggested condition of both DSS and SRA suffering some sort of mnemonical failure at the same time. Not that Mr. Begg suggests it to be the case in the slightest, but this does surface when discussion over the SM arises on numerous occasions.

I personally think another condition needs to be considered in that there is no concrete evidence that either official participated in or were present at the identification. If that is the case, if that could be how this entire affair really went down, it is therefore entirely possible that both DSS and SRA were only parroting what they were told...hence the similarity of the annotations on DSS' book to the declarations made by SRA.

In other words....for Jeff in particular....despite the probable or more likely scenario of DSS actually annotating his books....its still not a definite fact that what is written in DSS' copy of SRA's work that he is doing anything more than repeating what he was told and did not in reality attend. Same for SRA.

Thems my 2 cents.

That applies to almost anything and everything written, and the further back in time one goes the greater the improbability that the source actually witnessed what he's writing about, or, indeed, was even alive when it happened. And even if he did witness it, what he saw and how he interpreted it is open to question.

The fundamental question here, as in so many elsewheres, is surely whether what is being described actually took place, not necessarilly in all the detail, but at least in his central core: i.e., that there was a suspect, a witness and an identification?

[Paul]

Personally I have always held that the personal ravings of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson - and even Littlechild - are nowt but simple disinformation to promote and see prosper the very type of confusion we see on these message boards today over 100 years later.
Those boys sowed a deadly crop and we reap little.

Damned perceptive of them, though, A.P., to think that we'd care tuppence about any of it.

[Paul]

No Paul, he was interrupted on the Mona - he hadn't quite got the smile right - and went off in a fury, determined to paint another one.

Well, I'm glad he went off in a fury. If he'd gone off in a Lagonda I'd be really confused by now.

[SPE]

...
In the case of authentication of artefacts, where so much depends on opinion and inference, the situation has got so bad that no professional will ever make a definitive statement about anything, but always looks for and mentions caveats, no matter how improbable, just in case sometime down the line the thing is shown for some reason to be a fake. That leaves the rest of us to read between the lines, which is particularly difficult for museums and collectors who are maybe going to fork out millions for some manuscript or painting or whatever on the strength of the authenticator's report.

This is something that we who collect often have to face. Some collectors will accept good oral tradition as sufficient, and that falls well short of the higher standard that a historian should expect.

Many years ago I purchased the execution rope used by James Berry on John 'Babbacombe' Lee, the 'man they could not hang.' Fortunately for me a series of three letters from Berry, including the envelopes they were posted in, accompanied the rope and provided excellent provenance. The rope had been used in nine other executions including, interestingly, Orrock, which executions Berry had listed in the first letter. Berry finally sold it to a publican when the noose became bloodstained after he gave too long a drop at a Worcester execution.

A few years later an auction was held at Mere, near Salisbury, at which, it was advertised, the rope used on John Lee, 'the man they could not hang', was to be auctioned. I immediately contacted the auctioneer to warn him that such a claim must be dubious as I possessed the said rope, together with the executioner's letters of provenance. The 'Mere rope', however, was also accompanied by a very old letter, allegedly penned by Berry, stating that it was the rope used on Lee.

I hastened to Mere for the auction and took several photographs of the rope and letter. There were some dubious aspects to the letter, which was undoubtedly very old, that indicated a doubtful provenance, not least of which was a factual error in the letter. The doubt over the provenance was announced as the auction began - but the rope and letter still sold at over £3,000.

We have seen a similar phenomenon in Ripperworld with the auction of the alleged 'Eddowes shawl', the provenance of which couldn't be worse. There was much publicity, with both opinions on authenticity given, and it failed to reach the reserve in the auction at Bury St Edmunds. However, a private approach was afterwards made to the auction house and it sold, I believe, for over £5,000. Apparently mere oral tradition and plenty of publicity is sufficient for some collectors.

[Howard Brown]

Mr.B:

Not to deviate from the thread premise, but I think its highly likely that some sort of identification involving a witness and a suspect did materialize. How, when and where it was conducted and whether it involved a similar sort of moral certainty in the mind of SRA that he had described to H.L.Adam in regard to another case he participated in is another issue altogether.

Dear A.P.

Old bean...with all due respect, I don't think the written output from the officials you mentioned ( just my opinion ) were ravings at all. I think we have to consider the times and how frustrating and demanding the Case was to those men. Might you not be overexaggerating the case a little? If not, then perhaps we might want to include Inspector William Race along with them...

[A.P. Wolf]

How, you are most likely right, but I do see misperception combined with misconception as the likeliest cure for the truth, which I don't believe any of them could swallow... bitter pill it was and is.
As I've often said it is a remarkable piece of magic that the Whitechapel Murders led to the suicides of two senior police officers intimately involved in the investigation... I believe me good self to be absolutely correct when I claim that such a thing has history never seen before.
They were not driven to such a dreadful end by success or a truth, on the contrary they were driven by demons; and we must seek similar demons in the nonsensical ravings of these other senior officers intimately involved in the investigation.

[SPE]

I suspect that it might be even more complicated than that. For example, why is it supposed that the two parts were written at radically different times? A slight shakiness in one lot of handwriting could indicate a motor disorder which could suggest that the writer was several years older when he wrote it than when he wrote the other lot. But how does one distinguish between a slight shakiness due to a motor disorder from a shakiness caused by a change of writing surface - say from a desk to the arm of a chair or even in bed - and/or by the writing being done at different times of the day or before or after some physical activity? And it may be that the answer to this may boil down to opinion, which turn raises the question of how long and how far is it accepatble to question the general, if not altogether 100%, conclusion that the document was written by Swanson?

Perhaps these comments by Dr Davies account for why 'it is supposed that the two parts were written at radically different times.'

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/davies1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/davies2.jpg

[Paul]

Thank you Paul for your considered response, I reply as follows.

It is pointless to state the obvious that there is no other official mention of Druitt or Tumblety - for, as with Kosminski, there was no hard evidence against either of them. Kosminski is no better or worse in this sense than anyone else. However, I am not sure that anyone has made the sustained and persistent claims for any other suspect the way that you have with regard to Kosminski. And it is in no way a personal attack nor is it an insult to say that an examination of your past published works reveals that you have a distinct Anderson/Kosminski bias. If I was the only one who thought that then I would take stock of what I was thinking. But many, many others, amongst them leading authorities, think the same.

We don’t actually know whether or not there was hard evidence against Druitt, Kosminski or Tumblety, and much depends on what they or we would consider to be ‘hard’ evidence anyway.
Whether the evidence against Kosminski was any better or worse than against Druitt etc. is open to question, but given that Anderson and probably Swanson appear to have believed him to be the Ripper suggests that the evidence against him may have been better than the evidence against anyone else – which has been my position for the last twenty years and I have stated it as such far too many times to now consider it any fault of mine if others continue to think I am biased towards Kosminski.

You say that my use of the words 'boastful' and 'scribbled' is pejorative but I do not agree. To say that Anderson's book is boastful is stating a fact, and people I know who have read it agree that the man boasted a lot (and that has nothing to do with other books written at the time, some of which were undoubtedly also boastful - Anderson himself was still boastful). As for Swanson's annotations being scribbled, I guess that is a matter of subjective opinion, and my use of the word here may well have been unfair.

By prefacing your mention of Anderson’s book by calling it boastful you inherently implied that doubt about the book, such as the idea that Anderson was boasting about something which he was not justified in doing – i.e., claiming to have caught the Ripper when he had done nothing of the sort. It may not have been your intention to imply any such thing, but words in certain contexts, be that statements of fact or not, are pejorative.

Surely my caveats do apply to other sources - but we are not discussing other sources here - the caveats still stand in relation to the Anderson/Swanson claims. You say that historians 'are well able to deal with them', and so they may be if they stand back and remain totally objective. Indeed, you put the lie to this yourself when you state, two paragraphs later that "There are plenty of qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusion about all manner of things." There are obviously 'plenty of historians' who are not 'well able to deal' with such caveats. The only witnesses, historically, who your description could fit would be Schwartz and Lawende, and I am not sure where the 'several witnesses' comes in.

The point I was making is that we depend on the accuracy, veracity and trustworthiness of all historical sources and there are and have long been mechanisms in place for testing and assessing those things. All historians fit to be described as such should be well able to test and assess their sources. It is, after all, one of the most basic things a historian does. You should not take my subsequent remark out of context and apply it in a totally different and erroneous context.

In saying that there are plenty of qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusions, I was not suggesting that they are incapable of handling their sources with exceptional care and dexterity, I was referring to historians reaching different interpretation and conclusions, as famously did Carr and Elton, or those whose ideas have been superseded.

Regarding my explanations, you state that you do not 'find my explanations particularly plausible' and that is purely subjective; you would find that, wouldn't you.

That I do not find your explanations plausible is not subjective, it is based on a reasonable and objective assessment of your argument which is based on the assumption that Anderson and/or Swanson had confused memories, and that the non-identification of a Gentile sailor ‘evolved into’ the Anderson/Swanson story of the positive identification of a Polish Jew. The assumption is unsupported by good evidence and the idea that the non-identification of Gentile Sadler could be transformed into the positive identification of the Jew Kosminski is stretching credibility, especially when Swanson, at least, provides do much detail about the identification, and it doesn’t account for Anderson’s previous and continued belief in the story even when the lambasting by ‘Mentor’ would have surely corrected Anderson’s memory and perhaps have caused him to drop the the Ripper story from the volume edition of his memoirs.

I do not understand what you say you find 'insulting and tiresome' as I do not think that I have deliberately been insulting to you, and I know many people who think you are biased. Indeed, I think that most of us may be biased one way or another. In the past I have pointed out where you have been insulting to me, your Anderson article in Ripperologist and the review of our book being examples. But I am sure you will say that is not the case and I am being paranoid. I might agree if I was the only person who thought so. And I have had at least two leading Ripper authorities tell me that they think the explanation I give in the Anderson chapter in Scotland Yard Investigates is the best they have seen.

What is ‘insulting and tiresome’ are your repeated insinuations that my opinions and conclusions are dictated by bias, as when you say ‘well, you would say that wouldn’t you’. Anyone who thinks I am biased either hasn’t read my writings with due care, doesn’t know me at all well, or cannot distinguish between priority being given towards a suspect and being biased towards that suspect. Curiously, quite a lot of people respect me for my open-mindedness and willingness to consider all arguments and all sides of an argument, and among them, or so he’s often told me, is Howard Brown. Unlike Martin Fido, I have never stated that I believe the Polish Jew to have been Jack the Ripper. Indeed, the fact that I do not believe that he was is the foundation upon which my disagreement with Martin was based back in 1988.

The Anderson article in Ripperologist was not insulting to you, although I gather you allowed yourself to be goaded into thinking it was, and your response to it was about as subjective as anyone could get. As for my review of your book, my first book review was published when I was sixteen years old and in the umpety umpety years since then I have reviewed extensively in magazines and journals on both sides of the Atlantic, winning a reputation for fairness and objectivity. Your book was innovative when it was first published and paved the way for further police biographies, and when it was first published most of the information it contained about Reid was new and that more than amply excused some of the book’s deficiencies (which two reviews in Ripperologist, neither by or influenced by me, mentioned at the time). The new edition was given a title change which implied that it was a biography of Reid, yet no biography covers the first few decades of its subject’s life in a few pages, and you added nothing new to the book about Reid himself. The title change was therefore somewhat misleading. No mention was made on the book jacket, copyright page, or anywhere else that the book had been revised and corrected, it wasn’t stated on the publicity sheet which accompanied the book, or on Amberley’s website, or even on the relevant Amazon page. I did note that a few bits and pieces about the Ripper had been added here and there, but had no idea how substantial or important the additions might be, and I can assure you that no reviewer is going to make a page-by-page comparison of two editions on the off-chance that the author had made some changes. The review was not insulting to you, it was fair and objective assessment of the book and if the fault rests anywhere then it rests with Amberley for changing the title and not publicising that it was revised and corrected.

Philip Sugden is a properly qualified academic historian and that is something that Martin, you and I are not. Yes Martin Fido is academically qualified, but not, I believe, in the reading of history. Indeed he has made some significant errors in his interpretation of the historical sources (as you have too), his assessment of the Anderson-Smith relationship being one. I don't need to quote references to you on the state of Anderson's mind - it has all been done before and is old hat and boring to keep repeating. We, simply, will never agree on certain things.

I’m repeatedly told that Phil Sugden is a properly qualified academic historian, but I have no idea what his qualification is or what Phil has done professionally as a historian. As far as I am aware Martin is academically qualified to assess sources and may be better qualified in that field than is Phil Sugden. I don’t know what ‘significant errors’ he is guilty of, but I doubt that there is an historian living or dead who hasn’t misinterpreted sources. Indeed, the reinterpretation of sources is one of the few ways in which historical understanding advances. As far as I know, Martin’s assessment of the Anderson/Smith relationship was only inaccurate insofar as it didn’t take into account material you possessed, which had not be made public and about which Martin knew absolutely nothing. That doesn’t make Martin wrong.

'We' do not have 'a very simple problem' - you do, in selling your ideas about the plausibility of your whole scenario.

Well, as I’m not selling anything, that’s not much of a problem. But this is getting way off topic and I have work to do.

[Paul]

This is something that we who collect often have to face. Some collectors will accept good oral tradition as sufficient, and that falls well short of the higher standard that a historian should expect.

Many years ago I purchased the execution rope used by James Berry on John 'Babbacombe' Lee, the 'man they could not hang.' Fortunately for me a series of three letters from Berry, including the envelopes they were posted in, accompanied the rope and provided excellent provenance. The rope had been used in nine other executions including, interestingly, Orrock, which executions Berry had listed in the first letter. Berry finally sold it to a publican when the noose became bloodstained after he gave too long a drop at a Worcester execution.

A few years later an auction was held at Mere, near Salisbury, at which, it was advertised, the rope used on John Lee, 'the man they could not hang', was to be auctioned. I immediately contacted the auctioneer to warn him that such a claim must be dubious as I possessed the said rope, together with the executioner's letters of provenance. The 'Mere rope', however, was also accompanied by a very old letter, allegedly penned by Berry, stating that it was the rope used on Lee.

I hastened to Mere for the auction and took several photographs of the rope and letter. There were some dubious aspects to the letter, which was undoubtedly very old, that indicated a doubtful provenance, not least of which was a factual error in the letter. The doubt over the provenance was announced as the auction began - but the rope and letter still sold at over £3,000.

We have seen a similar phenomenon in Ripperworld with the auction of the alleged 'Eddowes shawl', the provenance of which couldn't be worse. There was much publicity, with both opinions on authenticity given, and it failed to reach the reserve in the auction at Bury St Edmunds. However, a private approach was afterwards made to the auction house and it sold, I believe, for over £5,000. Apparently mere oral tradition and plenty of publicity is sufficient for some collectors.

That's private collectors for you, I suppose, especially one's who have a damn sight more money to squander that you and I do, but are institutions like museums equally rash?

[Paul]

Mr.B:

Not to deviate from the thread premise, but I think its highly likely that some sort of identification involving a witness and a suspect did materialize. How, when and where it was conducted and whether it involved a similar sort of moral certainty in the mind of SRA that he had described to H.L.Adam in regard to another case he participated in is another issue altogether.

Howard,
well, that's pretty much the whole crux in an eggcup: If there was a suspect, a witness and an identification, and if the suspect wasn't Jack the Ripper, then the event happened and Anderson and Swanson were simply wrong in their conclusion. Now, is that more or less likely to be what happened than the idea that the whole thing was invented purposefully or otherwise, or, with due respect to Stewart, was the product of some geriatric or other confusion with another case? But to work...

[Jeff Leahy]

Can we just be clear that Dr Davies merely claims that there are small differences in the writing of the endnotes and marginalia, and that a different pencil was used?

That’s it.

At no point does Davies suggest that any other part of the writing was added at a different time or parts interfered with, which would have stuck out like a sore thumb. So the suggestion that anything else was altered or words changed does not hold up to qualified expert analysis.

The only thing that can be considered is the time gap between Swanson having written the two pieces. And while Dr Davies suggests ‘a period of time’ Paul has given extremely logical answers that might explain them.

Indeed I wonder whether a couple glasses of Scotch might have been a better explanation but I have no idea whether or not the old boy drank?

However I except that the current situation is unsatisfactory and think every attempt to resolve the situation should be made.

Thats not to say that I personally feel the need to use the probably word. Because I do not.

Pirate

[SPE]

In reply to your points -

We don’t actually know whether or not there was hard evidence against Druitt, Kosminski or Tumblety, and much depends on what they or we would consider to be ‘hard’ evidence anyway.
Whether the evidence against Kosminski was any better or worse than against Druitt etc. is open to question, but given that Anderson and probably Swanson appear to have believed him to be the Ripper suggests that the evidence against him may have been better than the evidence against anyone else – which has been my position for the last twenty years and I have stated it as such far too many times to now consider it any fault of mine if others continue to think I am biased towards Kosminski.

Hard evidence is evidence that provides a definite indication, to a degree that may vary, that connects a suspect to a crime, usually being at least sufficient to warrant an arrest on suspicion. Macnaghten's statement that "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one" indicates that they lacked any such evidence and that what there was would have been, at best, circumstantial. Is there evidence that Swanson believed Kosminski to be the Ripper? Yes, your position hasn't really changed at all in 20 years.

By prefacing your mention of Anderson’s book by calling it boastful you inherently implied that doubt about the book, such as the idea that Anderson was boasting about something which he was not justified in doing – i.e., claiming to have caught the Ripper when he had done nothing of the sort. It may not have been your intention to imply any such thing, but words in certain contexts, be that statements of fact or not, are pejorative.

Anderson's book is boastful, very boastful, and you can make what you wish out of that. If you consider what I said to be pejorative, I can live with that. If he was a boastful person then that might be considered to affect things that he said or positions he adopted. But, of course, at the end of the day it is up to the individual to decide what he thinks. I certainly do not agree with the position that you adopt, and I know that others don't also.

The point I was making is that we depend on the accuracy, veracity and trustworthiness of all historical sources and there are and have long been mechanisms in place for testing and assessing those things. All historians fit to be described as such should be well able to test and assess their sources. It is, after all, one of the most basic things a historian does. You should not take my subsequent remark out of context and apply it in a totally different and erroneous context.

I am well aware of the considerations involved in assessing the accuracy, veracity and trustworthiness of historical sources. You sometimes give the impression that you are talking down to others from a loftier position. An unfortunate trait.

In saying that there are plenty of qualified historians around who reach faulty conclusions, I was not suggesting that they are incapable of handling their sources with exceptional care and dexterity, I was referring to historians reaching different interpretation and conclusions, as famously did Carr and Elton, or those whose ideas have been superseded.

I think that you imbue all 'historians' with a greater status than perhaps some deserve. I would suggest that if a historian reaches faulty conclusions then he has not properly assessed the material he is working from, or he has reached those conclusions with insufficient material to reach a correct conclusion. I am not including admitted speculation here, I am speaking of conclusions he has presented as fact.

That I do not find your explanations plausible is not subjective, it is based on a reasonable and objective assessment of your argument which is based on the assumption that Anderson and/or Swanson had confused memories, and that the non-identification of a Gentile sailor ‘evolved into’ the Anderson/Swanson story of the positive identification of a Polish Jew. The assumption is unsupported by good evidence and the idea that the non-identification of Gentile Sadler could be transformed into the positive identification of the Jew Kosminski is stretching credibility, especially when Swanson, at least, provides do much detail about the identification, and it doesn’t account for Anderson’s previous and continued belief in the story even when the lambasting by ‘Mentor’ would have surely corrected Anderson’s memory and perhaps have caused him to drop the the Ripper story from the volume edition of his memoirs.

I do not find some of your explanations plausible, indeed I find some of your rhetorical questions in what are ostensibly reference works to be quite out of place. I do not assume that Anderson and or Swanson had confused memories, I offer it as an explanation not an assumption, and I am clear about that. It is, obviously, an hypothesis. I allow for prevarication on their part also. Anderson stated what we may call his belief in Blackwood's and was hardly in a position to change it after it was challenged. I daresay the Ripper story, a continuing sensational story, was considered essential to the book by his publisher. After all Anderson noted 'the interest attaching to this case', hardly a selling point he or his publisher would want to 'drop from the volume edition of his memoirs.' - and, of course one of the milestone cases in his tenure at the Yard.

What is ‘insulting and tiresome’ are your repeated insinuations that my opinions and conclusions are dictated by bias, as when you say ‘well, you would say that wouldn’t you’. Anyone who thinks I am biased either hasn’t read my writings with due care, doesn’t know me at all well, or cannot distinguish between priority being given towards a suspect and being biased towards that suspect. Curiously, quite a lot of people respect me for my open-mindedness and willingness to consider all arguments and all sides of an argument, and among them, or so he’s often told me, is Howard Brown. Unlike Martin Fido, I have never stated that I believe the Polish Jew to have been Jack the Ripper. Indeed, the fact that I do not believe that he was is the foundation upon which my disagreement with Martin was based back in 1988.

I find some of the things you say 'insulting and tiresome' and I guess that we shall both have to live with that. I shall not discuss your bias any further as you will obviously find it even more insulting and tiresome. I must, however, agree that you are not as dogmatic and inflexible as Martin.

The Anderson article in Ripperologist was not insulting to you, although I gather you allowed yourself to be goaded into thinking it was, and your response to it was about as subjective as anyone could get. As for my review of your book, my first book review was published when I was sixteen years old and in the umpety umpety years since then I have reviewed extensively in magazines and journals on both sides of the Atlantic, winning a reputation for fairness and objectivity. Your book was innovative when it was first published and paved the way for further police biographies, and when it was first published most of the information it contained about Reid was new and that more than amply excused some of the book’s deficiencies (which two reviews in Ripperologist, neither by or influenced by me, mentioned at the time). The new edition was given a title change which implied that it was a biography of Reid, yet no biography covers the first few decades of its subject’s life in a few pages, and you added nothing new to the book about Reid himself. The title change was therefore somewhat misleading. No mention was made on the book jacket, copyright page, or anywhere else that the book had been revised and corrected, it wasn’t stated on the publicity sheet which accompanied the book, or on Amberley’s website, or even on the relevant Amazon page. I did note that a few bits and pieces about the Ripper had been added here and there, but had no idea how substantial or important the additions might be, and I can assure you that no reviewer is going to make a page-by-page comparison of two editions on the off-chance that the author had made some changes. The review was not insulting to you, it was fair and objective assessment of the book and if the fault rests anywhere then it rests with Amberley for changing the title and not publicising that it was revised and corrected.

I am not stupid enough to be 'goaded into thinking' your article was insulting. In fact that suggestion in itself is insulting. I explained in my response my reasons and again there were many who agreed with me. Your review of our book was appalling and I have been overwhelmed by the support over this. There are obviously those who do not like to tell you what they think. Even one of your own co-editors on Ripperologist described the review by saying we had been 'hatcheted'. Nick Connell was less than pleased and I am sure that he would tell you so. From what you have said here you are still missing the point. I shall leave others to draw their own conclusions about that. But the mere fact that you failed to mention the extra 12,000 plus words and new information, making it sound like a straight re-issue (apart from the photos) must speak volumes. Fair and objective it certainly wasn't.

I’m repeatedly told that Phil Sugden is a properly qualified academic historian, but I have no idea what his qualification is or what Phil has done professionally as a historian. As far as I am aware Martin is academically qualified to assess sources and may be better qualified in that field than is Phil Sugden. I don’t know what ‘significant errors’ he is guilty of, but I doubt that there is an historian living or dead who hasn’t misinterpreted sources. Indeed, the reinterpretation of sources is one of the few ways in which historical understanding advances. As far as I know, Martin’s assessment of the Anderson/Smith relationship was only inaccurate insofar as it didn’t take into account material you possessed, which had not be made public and about which Martin knew absolutely nothing. That doesn’t make Martin wrong.

Phil Sugden is a properly qualified historian and I suggest that if you wish to know his qualifications then you should ask him. I'm afraid that 'As far as I am aware Martin is academically qualified to assess sources and may be better qualified in that field than is Phil Sugden' is not good enough. You are assuming. Martin made a quantum leap deduction on the relationship between Anderson and Smith based on the 1910 book and, I would suggest, that simply is not good enough. And you agreed fully with him in the Anderson article! As you 'don't know what significant errors he is guilty of' (and you for that matter) I shall be compiling an essay for you.

Well, as I’m not selling anything, that’s not much of a problem. But this is getting way off topic and I have work to do.

I too have other things to do, believe it or not.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I think AP's right on the money with his disinformation angle. The Whitechapel Murders hid a dark secret, and that secret certainly wasn't the identity of a low class Polish Jew, a possibly gay barrister or any other candidate the cops cared to name as the wholly mythical JtR. The top cops worked hard to keep sowing the seeds of confusion, but it wasn't to confound the likes of us 121 years later. Their concerns were far more immediate. It was to cover their own sorry backsides.

For instance, can it be pure coincidence that Abberline tendered his resignation a few days after the announcement that a Royal Commission was to investigate the Whitechapel Murders?

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

I feel a little like a contestant on a talent program doing a mime pretending to play harmonica routine just after The Beatles left the stage ...but I'll try anyway....no guts,no glory as they say....those two guys are hard acts to follow....

Simon:

You stated that the police worked to keep the misinformation machinery in operation to cover their inabilities to put a closure to the Case....a nice way of saying they were covering their own arses.

Can we honestly claim that some sort of cabal actually existed....a cabal which would have had at least two officials supporting one suspect's culpability, Kosminski...another supporting Druitt's candidacy...and a group of others claiming that no one, whether for or against any particular individual's candidacy, actually knew his identity ? It occurs to me that a cabal would have found less dissonant voices within its ranks than what we find materializing in the case of the WM.

No need to bring up the opposing views of an Abberline, Henry Moore, or any of the others who stated no solution was available.

Or do you mean what you said in the sense that each official...by virtue of them expressing the view the case hadn't been solved....or in the cases of MM (with Druitt) and SRA/DSS( Kosminski) who were claiming a solution.... were independently conducting their own spin doctoring on the Case?

Thank you.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

The top cops weren't covering their arses in order to mask their inability to bring closure to the case [although in 1910 SRA would have us believe it was closed]. The misinformation machinery [nice term, that] was to ensure that nobody discovered what the Whitechapel Murders were really all about.

And the truth had to be a biggie, otherwise it wouldn't still be a secret.

Maybe I just caught a whiff of Monro's hot potato.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Not to deviate from the thread premise, but I think its highly likely that some sort of identification involving a witness and a suspect did materialize. How, when and where it was conducted and whether it involved a similar sort of moral certainty in the mind of SRA that he had described to H.L.Adam in regard to another case he participated in is another issue altogether.--Marcel Marceau/HB

Now, is that more or less likely to be what happened than the idea that the whole thing was invented purposefully or otherwise, or, with due respect to Stewart, was the product of some geriatric or other confusion with another case? --Mr. B

I see a few possibilities here,dear sor.......and of course, one is that SRA was right on the money, DSS was right on the ball...and that the Case may have been solved satisfactorily in the minds of the men who were there, namely DSS and SRA, or at least one of the two.

My opinion at this time.....is that an identification did occur of some sort by someone. I can't believe one of the two officials would tell the other official something that was a complete fabrication, considering that they were more than colleagues in the same line of work, but friends...nor can I digest that both intentionally made a story up just to cover their backsides.

I tend to think less of a mutual erosion in faculty because of the addition made to the SM ( the surname . I believe that DSS was either told the surname prior to the publication of Anderson's writing on the matter or a short time after getting his hands on the autobiography, where SRA elaborated a little more after the initial repartee with "Mentor" in the newspapers.

Which boils down to my two favored scenarios... in that neither man was there and were told the facts as given them...either correctly or incorrectly, incompletely or completely...or that SRA was present and used the same sort of "moral certainty" towards the reaction of the witness to the suspect as to the latter's "guilt'...told DSS what went down....and DSS, being a friend of SRA, a fact which is often understated or considered peripheral to the "problem" inherent in this whole affair...and being cognizant of the fact that the "moral certainty" that SRA may have had couldn't be presented in a court of law, simply made notations of what SRA told him and did nothing more.

[Jeff Leahy]

"You sometimes give the impression that you are talking down to others from a loftier position. An unfortunate trait."

Can I just say that for the second time today I am in total agreement with SPE:rockon:it is indeed an unfortunate trait.

Pirate

[Howard Brown]

Dear Simon:

This is what I was referring to...that as you claimed by 1910, SRA had the Case closed his way and MM had it closed with an altogether different guilty party in Druitt. We can now determine with some degree of surety that MM was disclosing Druitt's name to people ( Chris Phillips found an important reference to a Dr. Bluitt in a novel on the Internet with particulars indicating the death of Druitt and the WM elsewhere...) as the Ripper. This wouldn't be much of an organized cabal considering other high officials were claiming no solution was ever determined.

For objectivity's sake and my own curiosity, since I am one of those "in betweeners" who believes an identification occurred but that Kosminski was not the Whitechapel Murderer, is it not possible that the celebrated flaming spud, this "hot potato" that Monro speaks of was the "moral certainty" that SRA couldn't bring to court in the reaction to Kosminski by the witness ?

[SPE]

...
Your book was innovative when it was first published and paved the way for further police biographies, and when it was first published most of the information it contained about Reid was new and that more than amply excused some of the book’s deficiencies (which two reviews in Ripperologist, neither by or influenced by me, mentioned at the time).
...


This is absolutely incredible and indicates that you either have a deficient memory or you haven't checked your facts.

First off, here is an extract of what Martin Fido said in his review of our book in Ripperologist no. 28, April 2000, and which you describe as one of the 'deficiencies of the book' -

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/fidomoore.jpg

The correct position here is that Fido, and the A-Z, had it wrong and Abberline outranked Moore in the case hierachy. Fido apparently preferring Dew's faulty recollection on this point to the pension records etc. with which we proved we were right.

[SPE]

...
Your book was innovative when it was first published and paved the way for further police biographies, and when it was first published most of the information it contained about Reid was new and that more than amply excused some of the book’s deficiencies (which two reviews in Ripperologist, neither by or influenced by me, mentioned at the time).


Here's another of your so-called 'deficiencies' in our book, pointed out by Fido in the review. This one is actually a cracker. It concerns the Commissioner's memo putting Swanson in charge of the case.

This was in the possession of the Swanson family and was first published by you in your 1988 book The Uncensored Facts. In that book you erroneously ascribed the document to Anderson and for the succeeding few years other authors were drawing their interpretation of Anderson's character from what is said in this report. When the first edition of the A-Z appeared in 1991 this report, although important, was entirely, and I must say mysteriously, missing. I actually proved that this memo was from Warren and went to Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce.

Needless to say Fido gets it hopelessly wrong in his review of our book, and so his mistake becomes a criticism of our book, our book actually being correct.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/commissioner1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/commissioner2.jpg

And, yes, there's more to come!

[SPE]

...
As for my review of your book, my first book review was published when I was sixteen years old and in the umpety umpety years since then I have reviewed extensively in magazines and journals on both sides of the Atlantic, winning a reputation for fairness and objectivity.

Apropos of which one of your early book reviews is coming back to bite you in the rear end...more later.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I suspect that it might be even more complicated than that. For example, why is it supposed that the two parts were written at radically different times?

I suppose I have a predilection for the simplest answer usually being the best.

As there is a difference in handwriting, one needs to conceive of a scenario where an elderly Swanson might revisit his notes and revise them, so to speak.

As I say again and again and again, I think Littlechild really hit the nail on the head with his comment about Anderson only thinking he knew. IF we are to accept that statement as correct, it begins to explain everything, doesn't it ?

You have a situation where two older gentlemen, intimately connected to the Case and also having a deep personal relationship, simply thought that they knew "who dunnit". Anderson didn't want to name the suspect personally for two reasons. One, professional codes of conduct. And two, there was simply no real proof. (I'd add a third, which might be that in his heart of hearts he knew all he had was a gut feeling that could be in error.)

So Anderson doesn't name his suspect, but an older Swanson decides he wants to leave the name for history's sake. So he adds the name to the Marginalia he wrote years earlier.

In this scenario, neither men are lying, and neither one is accurate. Neither was personal witness to an identification which probably took place but produced nothing to work with. No forgeries are involved, no intentional deceit. Just an unwillingness by two officials to admit TO THEMSELVES that they simply had never caught the Ripper. Far easier to believe that the Jews took care of their own, and that there was no way to ever crack that nut.

Personally speaking, I believe this is the simplest explanation.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

On Page 138 of Anderson's TLSOMOL Swanson flagged the sentence, "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school", underlining "and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service."

But on the endpaper of TLSOMOL Swanson did just that.

Odd behaviour for such a supposedly loyal and trusted friend/colleague.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert Linford]

Hi Sir Robert

The problem with the scenario of two ageing policemen desperately clinging on to the idea that they'd solved the case, is that Swanson doesn't even write the "Ripper's" forename. What policeman lets a man get half away, or half a man get away, however you want to regard it? If Swanson wanted to leave the name for history's sake, why do it in half measures? Perhaps
1. Swanson originally knew the forename but forgot it.
2. Anderson knew the forename but died before telling Swanson.
3. neither knew the forename - but that doesn't bode well for their interest in the case.
4. Fido's confusion theory.
5. About 2000 other explanations.:dizzy:

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

Good points.

What would be your opinion of the endpaper marginalia if it read "Aaron Kosminski"?

Regards,

Simon

[Robert Linford]

Hi Simon

Oh, now then, there's some vary tight timing, whose details I've forgotten
(I'm an ageing old git) concerning the time of appearance of Fido's book, the time of appearance of the marginalia, and the question of whether the marginalia could be a hoax. I'll have to pass on that one.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

I'd say, as one ageing old git to another, that the absence of Kosminski's forename is a good clue to the provenance of the endpaper marginalia.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Sir Bob said:

So Anderson doesn't name his suspect, but an older Swanson decides he wants to leave the name for history's sake. So he adds the name to the Marginalia he wrote years earlier.

Bob... in the above scenario, we would find an aging but not faculty deficient Swanson leaving it in such a place for history's sake without verbally communicating this important historical fact or version of events to any of his family members. That he wrote it for himself ( an idiosyncrasy perhaps) is a possibility....but leaving it for "history's sake" with all due respect, might it not have been found in an easier spot to locate and earlier? Its almost as if he's hiding the name of Kosminski...since this information, according to what I've been led to believe, was not given to his family...and if he was saving it for historical confirmation of what SRA said, why not let them in on the information?

It is maddening, I know.

Let me ask Mr. Begg and SPE this question..or anyone else for that matter...

In DSS's books...not just the TLSOMOL...are other men or women referred to by surname only ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

On Page 138 of Anderson's TLSOMOL Swanson flagged the sentence, "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school", underlining "and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service."

But on the endpaper of TLSOMOL Swanson did just that.

Odd behaviour for such a supposedly loyal and trusted friend/colleague.

Regards,

Simon

This is somewhat disingenuous. Swanson did NOT write the notes for public consumption. They were private notes to himself. Which we all do all the time.

Get real

Pirate

[SirRobertAnderson]

On Page 138 of Anderson's TLSOMOL Swanson flagged the sentence, "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school", underlining "and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service."



He wrote it in a book in his private collection, and it took decades for it to come to light. Not exactly shouting it from the mountain tops, was it ?

[Chris G.]

Hi All,

On Page 138 of Anderson's TLSOMOL Swanson flagged the sentence, "Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school", underlining "and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service."

But on the endpaper of TLSOMOL Swanson did just that.

Odd behaviour for such a supposedly loyal and trusted friend/colleague.

Regards,

Simon

Yes and isn't his old boss Sir Robert Anderson telling tales out of school as well, even though he might make out he isn't? :rolleyes:

Chris

[SirRobertAnderson]

3. neither knew the forename - but that doesn't bode well for their interest in the case.

I firmly believe that we (Ripperologists, Forums, Casebook members etc etc) are FAR more interested in the Ripper than Anderson ever was. I suspect the same can be said of Swanson.

We're obsessed; they weren't.

It explains a lot IMHO.

[Chris G.]

I firmly believe that we (Ripperologists, Forums, Casebook members etc etc) are FAR more interested in the Ripper than Anderson ever was. I suspect the same can be said of Swanson.

We're obsessed; they weren't.

It explains a lot IMHO.

Oh, yeah?

Hands up everyone who thinks that Sir Robert Anderson was obsessed with letting everyone know he was right.

Chris

[SPE]

...
As for my review of your book, my first book review was published when I was sixteen years old and in the umpety umpety years since then I have reviewed extensively in magazines and journals on both sides of the Atlantic, winning a reputation for fairness and objectivity. Your book was innovative when it was first published and paved the way for further police biographies, and when it was first published most of the information it contained about Reid was new and that more than amply excused some of the book’s deficiencies (which two reviews in Ripperologist, neither by or influenced by me, mentioned at the time). The new edition was given a title change which implied that it was a biography of Reid, yet no biography covers the first few decades of its subject’s life in a few pages, and you added nothing new to the book about Reid himself. The title change was therefore somewhat misleading. No mention was made on the book jacket, copyright page, or anywhere else that the book had been revised and corrected, it wasn’t stated on the publicity sheet which accompanied the book, or on Amberley’s website, or even on the relevant Amazon page. I did note that a few bits and pieces about the Ripper had been added here and there, but had no idea how substantial or important the additions might be, and I can assure you that no reviewer is going to make a page-by-page comparison of two editions on the off-chance that the author had made some changes. The review was not insulting to you, it was fair and objective assessment of the book and if the fault rests anywhere then it rests with Amberley for changing the title and not publicising that it was revised and corrected.


Nick Connell has responded to the above remarks about the review as follows -

With reference to Paul Begg’s posting on the JTR Forums website on Sunday 11th October 2009

Paul stated ‘You have added nothing new to the book about Reid himself.’ A cursory scan of the 2009 Amberley edition of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper reveals the following new information on Reid:

P17 – Reid’s family lived above a pub in Camberwell
P17 – Reid had five sisters
P25 – Reid falsely claimed his arrest of John Reynolds was much more dramatic than it had been.
P71 – Reid’s arrest of George Bartlett
P104 – Reid’s mother had been an inmate of a workhouse
P151 – Reid sat on the committee to plan celebrations at Herne for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubillee
P154 – Reid had a German housekeeper who had lived in Whitechapel
P155 – Additional information on Reid’s involvement in the Canham Read case
P168 – Reid featured in a Morning Leader story about coastal erosion
P180 – Reid was probably a parish councillor
P181 – Reid erected a sign at the site of the old village pump in Hampton

I could produce a longer list of additional information the paperback edition contains about the Whitechapel murders and Metropolitan Police but as Stewart has pointed out, the new edition contains around 12,000 extra words and the information is all there for anyone who chooses to read the book.

Paul made another incorrect statement in his post, viz. ‘If the fault lies anywhere then it rests with Amberley for changing the title.’ I changed the title.

[Paul]

Nick Connell has responded to the above remarks about the review as follows -

With reference to Paul Begg’s posting on the JTR Forums website on Sunday 11th October 2009

Paul stated ‘You have added nothing new to the book about Reid himself.’ A cursory scan of the 2009 Amberley edition of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper reveals the following new information on Reid:

P17 – Reid’s family lived above a pub in Camberwell
P17 – Reid had five sisters
P25 – Reid falsely claimed his arrest of John Reynolds was much more dramatic than it had been.
P71 – Reid’s arrest of George Bartlett
P104 – Reid’s mother had been an inmate of a workhouse
P151 – Reid sat on the committee to plan celebrations at Herne for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubillee
P154 – Reid had a German housekeeper who had lived in Whitechapel
P155 – Additional information on Reid’s involvement in the Canham Read case
P168 – Reid featured in a Morning Leader story about coastal erosion
P180 – Reid was probably a parish councillor
P181 – Reid erected a sign at the site of the old village pump in Hampton

I could produce a longer list of additional information the paperback edition contains about the Whitechapel murders and Metropolitan Police but as Stewart has pointed out, the new edition contains around 12,000 extra words and the information is all there for anyone who chooses to read the book.

Paul made another incorrect statement in his post, viz. ‘If the fault lies anywhere then it rests with Amberley for changing the title.’ I changed the title.

Fine. Not being psychic and certainly not having the time to make a page-by-page comparison of the two editions, how would a reviewer know any of this? What a help it would have been to the world at large if someone had thought to make this known. And if you changed the title then you can accept the responsability for that, and your publicist can accept the responsibility for not making the other information known.

[Paul]

Let me ask Mr. Begg and SPE this question..or anyone else for that matter...

In DSS's books...not just the TLSOMOL...are other men or women referred to by surname only ?

I don't recall offhand. I'll have to check, but I'm up to my eyes with work right now.

[SPE]

Fine. Not being psychic and certainly not having the time to make a page-by-page comparison of the two editions, how would a reviewer know any of this? What a help it would have been to the world at large if someone had thought to make this known. And if you changed the title then you can accept the responsability for that, and your publicist can accept the responsibility for not making the other information known.

Silly me, there I was thinking that reviewers read the books they were sent to review.

[Paul]

In reply to your points -



I too have other things to do, believe it or not.

I do believe it. Let's just drop this whole thing. I doubt that anyone else is interested.

[SPE]

I suppose I have a predilection for the simplest answer usually being the best.
As there is a difference in handwriting, one needs to conceive of a scenario where an elderly Swanson might revisit his notes and revise them, so to speak.
As I say again and again and again, I think Littlechild really hit the nail on the head with his comment about Anderson only thinking he knew. IF we are to accept that statement as correct, it begins to explain everything, doesn't it ?
You have a situation where two older gentlemen, intimately connected to the Case and also having a deep personal relationship, simply thought that they knew "who dunnit". Anderson didn't want to name the suspect personally for two reasons. One, professional codes of conduct. And two, there was simply no real proof. (I'd add a third, which might be that in his heart of hearts he knew all he had was a gut feeling that could be in error.)
So Anderson doesn't name his suspect, but an older Swanson decides he wants to leave the name for history's sake. So he adds the name to the Marginalia he wrote years earlier.
In this scenario, neither men are lying, and neither one is accurate. Neither was personal witness to an identification which probably took place but produced nothing to work with. No forgeries are involved, no intentional deceit. Just an unwillingness by two officials to admit TO THEMSELVES that they simply had never caught the Ripper. Far easier to believe that the Jews took care of their own, and that there was no way to ever crack that nut.
Personally speaking, I believe this is the simplest explanation.


I agree that you have a plausible and fairly straightforward explanation Robert. As you point out there's no need for fakery to be involved, and no evidence that it was.

[SPE]

Hi Sir Robert
The problem with the scenario of two ageing policemen desperately clinging on to the idea that they'd solved the case, is that Swanson doesn't even write the "Ripper's" forename. What policeman lets a man get half away, or half a man get away, however you want to regard it? If Swanson wanted to leave the name for history's sake, why do it in half measures? Perhaps
1. Swanson originally knew the forename but forgot it.
2. Anderson knew the forename but died before telling Swanson.
3. neither knew the forename - but that doesn't bode well for their interest in the case.
4. Fido's confusion theory.
5. About 2000 other explanations.:dizzy:

But, oddly (coincidentally?), Macnaghten also uses only 'Kosminski' with no forename.

[Jeff Leahy]

But, oddly (coincidentally?), Macnaghten also uses only 'Kosminski' with no forename.

Yes indeed. Which would seem to suggest they were all referencing a file that is now missing. Which in my opinion is the most obvious explanation.

all best

Pirate

[SPE]

Yes indeed. Which would seem to suggest they were all referencing a file that is now missing. Which in my opinion is the most obvious explanation.
all best
Pirate

A file with only a last name on it - briliiant, I guess you'll be off now to dirty your hands with some real research and find the missing file. Just think, you will become a Ripper immortal.

[Howard Brown]

Jeff .....

Just as a side note to all this...has it ever struck you as odd that both the MM and the Swanson marginalia refer to Kosminski only by his surname?

I could see police officials referring to someone perpetually found in the public eye or of significant public interest like Elvis by just a first name or surname...but its a little unusual that that little extra step wasn't made to provide a first name for someone whose name was evidently on some official files at some point in time....

Assuming that DSS had one to go on in the first place....

What do you make of that ?

Thank you.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff .....

Just as a side note to all this...has it ever struck you as odd that both the MM and the Swanson marginalia refer to Kosminski only by his surname?

I could see police officials referring to someone perpetually found in the public eye or of significant public interest like Elvis by just a first name or surname...but its a little unusual that that little extra step wasn't made to provide a first name for someone whose name was evidently on some official files at some point in time....

Assuming that DSS had one to go on in the first place....

What do you make of that ?

Thank you.

Well no I don't find it odd. But then I went to an all boys school where we only ever addressed each other by surnames or nick names (usually a variation of the surname) So perhaps Aaron only used the name Kosminski when referring to himself.

That said we have some evidence that he used the name Abraham.

likely or not we will never know for sure.

Pirate

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the reply Jeff.

Hmm.....Seems that there was little difficulty ascertaining the first name in the 1889 "Walking the dog" incident...as well as the use of "Abrahams"

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=82450#post82450

Oh well. Maybe thats what it took all along to find out his first name....an actual contact with the police or the courts.....

[Paul]

Jeff .....

Just as a side note to all this...has it ever struck you as odd that both the MM and the Swanson marginalia refer to Kosminski only by his surname?

I could see police officials referring to someone perpetually found in the public eye or of significant public interest like Elvis by just a first name or surname...but its a little unusual that that little extra step wasn't made to provide a first name for someone whose name was evidently on some official files at some point in time....

Assuming that DSS had one to go on in the first place....

What do you make of that ?

Thank you.

Howard,
Just to quickly answer your earlier question, in some marginal notes in a small book about Adam Worth Swanson refers to two men as Junka and Raymond (the former a nickname and the latter a surname used by Worth). However, it should be noted that both these men are discussed in the text and referred to therein by those names, so it differs slightly from 'Kosminski' insofar as 'Kosminski' is not mentioned by name in the text of The Lighter Side...

As for both Macnaghten and Swanson only using the surname, it is curious and suggests that both men derived the name from a common exemplar. However, since Swanson appears to be more fully informed than Macnaghten, a common source looks prima facie improbable, suggesting instead that no forename was known or, perhaps, that neither man could recall it. Alternatively it could just be pure coincidence.

[Caroline Morris]

I suspect that it might be even more complicated than that. For example, why is it supposed that the two parts were written at radically different times? A slight shakiness in one lot of handwriting could indicate a motor disorder which could suggest that the writer was several years older when he wrote it than when he wrote the other lot. But how does one distinguish between a slight shakiness due to a motor disorder from a shakiness caused by a change of writing surface - say from a desk to the arm of a chair or even in bed - and/or by the writing being done at different times of the day or before or after some physical activity? And it may be that the answer to this may boil down to opinion, which turn raises the question of how long and how far is it accepatble to question the general, if not altogether 100%, conclusion that the document was written by Swanson?

Hi Paul,

Just to add to this with a personal observation - a slight shakiness can also be an indication of certain medical conditions that can strike at any time of life. An overactive thyroid, for example (which I had in 2001 and 2006 and strongly suspect I have again now - I had a blood test this morning :sad:), can make your handwriting go from schoolboy neat to a shaky scrawl in just days.

I imagine it would take a seriously experienced handwriting examiner (with considerable medical knowledge to boot) to pinpoint the most probable cause of the slight differences observed, let alone accurately judge the interval in time between the two ‘sessions’. Could be anything from days to decades. I'm writing like an octogenarian at the moment.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

Hi Paul,

Just to add to this with a personal observation - a slight shakiness can also be an indication of certain medical conditions that can strike at any time of life. An overactive thyroid, for example (which I had in 2001 and 2006 and strongly suspect I have again now - I had a blood test this morning :sad:), can make your handwriting go from schoolboy neat to a shaky scrawl in just days.

I imagine it would take a seriously experienced handwriting examiner (with considerable medical knowledge to boot) to pinpoint the most probable cause of the slight differences observed, let alone accurately judge the interval in time between the two ‘sessions’. Could be anything from days to decades. I'm writing like an octogenarian at the moment.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks, Caz, and I'm sorry to hear about your thyroid. Take care.