Seaside Home?

[lynn cates]

why?

Hello David. Why forgery?

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Owing to his illness, the philosopher took to coasting : when the Queen asked him about equations for curves, she received the startling reply, 'Eat less fatty food.'

[lynn cates]

corroboration

Hello Robert. Hmm, have to ask Christer about that one.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

It turned out that instead of the French philosopher Descartes, she'd lumbered herself with the Irish philosopher Des Cartes.

[lynn cates]

observing the proper order of nature

Hello Robert. In which case she put Des Cartes before the horse.

Cheers.
LC

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Fair points again, though as I am constantly reminded, the simple truth re Reid may just be that he told the truth. Just who did then?

Kindly

Phil

Phil,

Its impossible to say who was truthful or correct. Im just wary of the idea that Anderson was the only one who could have possibly lied while Abberline and Reid were both playing with a straight deck.

[Robert]

Lynn

[robhouse]

Lynn,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Stephen Thomas suggested that the last phrase "Kosminski was the suspect" may have been added on by "A.N.other," to which you agreed (or at least nodded your head implying agreement) adding that this (i.e. this forgery) would explain why this fragment looks like "an interpolation." I took this to mean that you were suggesting that the last phrase was added on later (by someone else.) Apparently you did not mean this, or did you? I am not clear.

When I said "Stylistic difference" I was referring to the style of the handwriting, not the style of his writing.

So, as I am no longer clear what point you are trying to make, I will add a few things.

For anyone who is suggesting that "Kosminski was the suspect" was added on later by another person, but the rest of the annotations are authentic, I will say that the argument is very weak. You would be better off suggesting that the entire endpaper writing was forged, or better yet, that the "second sitting" annotations were all forged by someone.

If just "Kosminski was the suspect" were forged, then you also must mean, implicitly, that the initials "D.S.S." were also forged, unless we are to assume that Swanson left an unreasonably large gap under the paragraph—just large enough for the latter forger to add in the final coup de grace. Also, the forger would have had to find the exact same pencil DSS used, and copy his handwriting so expertly that any difference in handwriting style was not noticed by a professional document examiner.

To be honest, I am quite sick of hearing this type of nonsense bandied about on the message boards as if it had any validity at all. But Lynn, as I said, I am not clear if this was your intention.

RH

[Observer]

I do not see that there is anything strange in this at all. Your Tchaikovski example is not a good comparison. Nor is there any noted stylistic difference (or difference in pencil) in the handwriting of this last sentence at all, and none was remarked on at all in the handwriting expert's analysis. But you people who want to believe the marginalia are fake seem to be willing to convince yourselves of anything you like.

RH

Hi

I'd agree, there isn't anything strange regarding the maqrginalia's construction. As has been said, the example Lynn Cates provides does not require Descartes monicur as it's Parthian shot, the quote's author is not in question. However Swanson was commenting on an unknown quantity, that is, Kosminski, he felt a need to reveal his name, and that's exactly what he did.

Not a very good comparison really.

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks.

"I'd hazard that it was customary to refer to somebody thought to have committed a crime but to be unconvicted of it as a suspect. All Swanson did was to follow Anderson's lead of referring to that man as "the suspect". He then wrote an identifier, maybe even as an afterthought."

So, it sounds like there was a story extant, possibly original with Sir Robert and concerning Kosminski, and Swanson was trying to make sense of it?

I could live with that. I think many of us are still trying to make sense of it and we might annotate in precisely that way.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn
That wasn't what I was suggesting though. I was merely suggesting that Anderson did not use a personal name when writing of (one presumes) Kosminski, but referred to him as the "suspect", and Swanson did the same, adding the suspect's name at the end. I don't think this the story itself is particularly complicated, it's just highly improbable (which is what set the alarm bells ringing in the first place), but if the document is authentic, which it is, then the story is what Swanson believed, and since it must have appeared as improbable to him as it does to us (more so in all probability I would have thought), and since he accepted it, then our conclusions aren't too many in number!

[caz]

The Older Brain's Filing Cabinets

Hi All,

I'm quite a lazy person, but I also have a thing about getting names correct, whether I'm writing something just for myself, or for others to read. So if I suddenly find myself wanting to make a note or an observation about someone, but don't have their name immediately to hand and can't quite recall what it is or how to spell it, I will often leave it out if it's obvious to whom I refer.

I've done this loads of times on the boards when referring to various characters involved in the ripper or A6 cases (for example Lynn's pork butcher, Louis D with his pony and cart, or the Liverpool sweet shop lady who gave Hanratty an alibi but for the wrong day). If and when I feel the need to use the name I will dig it out and make sure I have it right before including it.

I can certainly imagine a situation where Swanson had picked up the book and was reading about Anderson's unnamed suspect when he felt compelled to add a few pencil notes based on his own understanding, while unable to bring the man's name to mind at that time, or at least unsure of how to spell it. Leaving it out wouldn't have mattered as he was writing for himself and knew who he and Anderson were thinking of. But he may have refreshed his memory by referring to another personal source, or simply had a flash of recall at some point (happens to me all the time) so when he returned to those same passages he was able to add the name. It might explain the sentence order:

'Kosminski was the suspect', and he could simply refer back to this whenever he had trouble remembering it in the future (which also happens to me all the time).

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

not mine

Hello Rob.

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Stephen Thomas suggested that the last phrase "Kosminski was the suspect" may have been added on by "A.N.other," to which you agreed (or at least nodded your head implying agreement) adding that this (i.e. this forgery) would explain why this fragment looks like "an interpolation." "

I said that IF that were the case it would explain why it looks like an interpolation. I won't bore you with truth tables for conditional logic.

"I took this to mean that you were suggesting that the last phrase was added on later (by someone else.) Apparently you did not mean this, or did you? I am not clear."

I suggested no such thing.

If it's alright, I would be delighted to see words like "forgery" and "conspiracy" omitted from our vocabulary.

At any rate, I VERY much appreciate your asking for clarification rather than going forward with a point not mine.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

nice turn of a phrase

Hello Mr. Begg. Thanks for that explanation.

I admire the phrase--"improbable."

Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

possible

Hello Caroline. Yes, that is a possibility.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

I'm quite a lazy person, but I also have a thing about getting names correct, whether I'm writing something just for myself, or for others to read. So if I suddenly find myself wanting to make a note or an observation about someone, but don't have their name immediately to hand and can't quite recall what it is or how to spell it, I will often leave it out if it's obvious to whom I refer.

I've done this loads of times on the boards when referring to various characters involved in the ripper or A6 cases (for example Lynn's pork butcher, Louis D with his pony and cart, or the Liverpool sweet shop lady who gave Hanratty an alibi but for the wrong day). If and when I feel the need to use the name I will dig it out and make sure I have it right before including it.

I can certainly imagine a situation where Swanson had picked up the book and was reading about Anderson's unnamed suspect when he felt compelled to add a few pencil notes based on his own understanding, while unable to bring the man's name to mind at that time, or at least unsure of how to spell it. Leaving it out wouldn't have mattered as he was writing for himself and knew who he and Anderson were thinking of. But he may have refreshed his memory by referring to another personal source, or simply had a flash of recall at some point (happens to me all the time) so when he returned to those same passages he was able to add the name. It might explain the sentence order:

'Kosminski was the suspect', and he could simply refer back to this whenever he had trouble remembering it in the future (which also happens to me all the time).

Love,

Caz
X

I absolutely agree 'KOSMINSKI' is a very specific spelling. And Swanson clearly took some cear to get it correct.

Yours Jeff