The Swanson Marginalia

[Monty]

I am not into their studies. I do my own.

Unless you have had direct access to those documents, the above statement is false.

Nothing more than a time waster.

Monty

[Bridewell]

I am not into their studies. I do my own.

So your posts on the Swanson Marginalia are based on your own study of Swanson's copy of Anderson's book and the marginal annotations then.

[Pierre]

Pierre, you claim not to be a ripperologist and to have more or less stumbled across, by accident, whatever it is you claim to have discovered. You are arguing with people who have been studying the subject for years and who, unlike you and I, have seen this book and the marginalia. A little humility would not go amiss.

I am not into their studies. I do my own.

[Bridewell]

That is the history of the marginalia.

Pierre

Pierre, you claim not to be a ripperologist and to have more or less stumbled across, by accident, whatever it is you claim to have discovered. You are arguing with people who have been studying the subject for years and who, unlike you and I, have seen this book and the marginalia. A little humility would not go amiss.

[AdamNeilWood]

That is the history of the marginalia.

Pierre

No Pierre, it's a history of the book which contains the marginalia, which I posted in response to you claiming nobody knew where that volume was prior to it "being left with the immediate family".

Adam

[PaulB]

That is the history of the marginalia.

Pierre

The book belonged to Donald Swanson and remained in the family when he died. There is absolutely no reason whatever to think that it ever left the possession of the family at any time. Furthermore, it was part of a cache of papers and books belonging to Donald Swanson, including other books containing marginalia. The question is not so much a matter of not knowing where the marginalia was at any time in its history, but what reason or evidence there is for thinking that it may have been somewhere other than where it is believed to have been, namely in the possession of the family.

[Pierre]

When Donald Swanson passed away in November 1924 his possessions, including his library of books, remained at the family home in Presburg Road, New Malden, now owned by his widow Julia.

When she in turn died in 1935, everything in the house was inherited by daughters Alice and Ada. They sold the house at Presburg Road in 1944 and moved to a village near Dunstable, taking everything with them. They lived there together until Ada passed away in 1976, and Alice in 1981.

It was when her nephew James Swanson, her executor, was clearing the house that the marginalia was discovered.

That is the history of the marginalia.

Pierre

[AdamNeilWood]

"We know the book was left in the possession of the immediate family, at the family home."

And before the point it was left there, where was it? No one knows.

When Donald Swanson passed away in November 1924 his possessions, including his library of books, remained at the family home in Presburg Road, New Malden, now owned by his widow Julia.

When she in turn died in 1935, everything in the house was inherited by daughters Alice and Ada. They sold the house at Presburg Road in 1944 and moved to a village near Dunstable, taking everything with them. They lived there together until Ada passed away in 1976, and Alice in 1981.

It was when her nephew James Swanson, her executor, was clearing the house that the marginalia was discovered.

[GUT]

You do not even know what to expect from an academic historian

Or perhaps he does, but isn't Talking to one, I thought he was talking to Pierre

[Elamarna]

What a strange reply.
You are the one raising the idea that swanson mentioned Kosminski in an attempt to cover for another suspect, yet now you change and say that the marginalia is pointless.

Why then have you raised it?

Once again you claim other sources.

Of course I know what to expect from an academic historian, why would think I would not.

What was made PUBLIC in 1894 relating to Kosminski by name.?
Note I asked for public documents not private.


Once again in the absence of an sources we must assume none exist.


STEVE

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392720]

Pierre, I despair.

No need for that. Relax, Steve!

More nonsense in the post I am sorry to say!

You really are not dealing with this at all well.

Why would I "deal with it well"? I told you Iīm not interested in the marginalia. It is not a reliable source.

So you are not interested in the marginalia ?

Ok, I accept that, therefore there is no need to post is there.?

Just trying some thoughts. No big deal.

But of course you are interested, it is part of the grand conspiracy theory, the cover up of your man.

I donīt need the marginalia. There are other sources.

As the months have gone on, the ideas become less and less reasoned and thought out.

You do not even know what the "ideas" are.

Dealing with the responses is now so easy!

Glad to hear you donīt have a hard time dealing with my responses. Enjoy it!

The "event" is of course the murders.

You know full well what I am referring to, the response is unworthy of you and non professional.

No, I didnīt. And why the talk about "unworthy" and "non professional". It has nothing to do with the marginalia.

What a response, I need say no more

Again asking what words mean, truly desperate stuff!

"Desperate" - why do you say that? I donīt understand it.

It is fast reaching the point where debating with you is a pointless, but easy process.

Your mind is closed, and so many holes appear in the arguments.

Very difficult to respond to that. "Closed" mind, "holes" in arguments. Pointless and it has nothing to do with the marginalia.

However rather than defend the position put forward; you argue over the meaning of words.

What position?

Such a non professional approach, what a shame!

That is funny! "Shame"! Why the strong words, Steve?

On to your response:

Do you have any data to back up the suggestion it was seen by others before the publication ?

No and that is why I wrote that we donīt know.

Who were these others?

If these others had seen the notes, did they have any effect on the public’s view point?

By the way do you know when Kosminski's name was first linked to the case?

Publicly, I mean?

1894.

I do not mind people making mistakes, and getting the odd item wrong, I certainly do it from time to time.

However this is now far too common.

T|he lack of basic knowledge on the case, is just as glaring today as it was a year ago.

I did tell you I am not a ripperologist. I do not share the ideas of ripperology with you. I have other interests.

Is the response given above, not the same as my question above, it is a "may" question.

As YOU say, we do not know!

In the absence of any data to say some one had seen Swanson's WE MUST assume no one had, to say other is pure invention!

You did read what I said, didnīt you: "Other people may have seen it before this, we do not know."

So we can not assume anything.

Pray tell us what does Kosminski's date of death has to do with a document YOU claim was written to shift the blame from some unknown to Kosminski.

"On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards..."

"and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards...".

He was admitted to Colney Hatch Asylum in February 1891. "Died shortly afterwards". 1919 is 28 years later, Steve!

The telling point being it was not made public, until almost 70 years after Kosminski's death, a point which is not addressed, only platitudes in reply.

If you see platitudes, they correspond with the platitudes in Swansonīs signed little writings.

Wrong.

We know the book was left in the possession of the immediate family, at the family home.

And before the point it was left there, where was it? No one knows.

It was they, the family, in the 1980's decided to put the information in the public domain.

Basic research not done!

What basic research not "done"? I know the story about how the family put it in the public domain. Stop assuming silly things. And it is not even "research", it is just simple information anyone can find on the internet.

Not what one expects from an academic historian.

You do not even know what to expect from an academic historian.

What a cop out!

Not even prepared to look at how, if true, it destroys the hypothesis!

Again. And again. The source is not reliable and therefore meaningless. It needs context. There isnīt any.

Forgive me, we have to spell out every word for you,or you give reply’s like this.

"We"?

The hypothesis that Swanson was moving the blame from someone he knew was the killer, to kosminski, whom according to you was an innocent.
( He may have been, but you have given NO coherent argument to promote that view.).

The hypothetical Kosminski did not die when he should have died. If there is no Kosminski, i.e. a Kosminski with sources on which one can establish historical facts, there is no historical Kosminski.

You have NO sources to back this idea, I am not wrong my friend, I am honest.

You do not know anything about that.

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

I know what they are. They are out there to see for anyone. Call them what you will. They do contain statements since they are formalized, i.e. written down and signed.

They are not signed, nor are they formal statements. They are marginal annotations. They would probably be best described as clarifications of what Anderson had written. Whether or not Swanson intended them to be seen by anyone other than himself is a matter of conjecture.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

I donīt think it was that place, but I think it was by the sea at a resort at another place.

Anyway, to add more questions to your questions, which are good questions, why "send" (?) a young jewish man from the lower classes to such at place for identification - why not just go and get him and take him to a police station? That was standard procedure.

So what was so specific about that man that they could not apply standard procedure on him?

My hypothesis is that the police did ID a man at a seaside place, and the press heard about it, and some officers in the police force knew about it, and afterwards Swanson wanted to make people think it was another suspect. And it was easy to pick one of the known ones.

There must have been a source or sources where the identification at a seaside place was described and that source or those sources are with high probability lost.

On the other hand, there are sources showing that someone was at such a seaside place.

Regards, Pierre

I think the argument that would be presented in support of Kosminski being the suspect is that he was deemed insane and there was no realistic prospect of there ever being a criminal prosecution; therefore that the purpose was to confirm to the police that they had the right man. A confrontation, which is what is described, is the worst sort of identification imaginable and evidentially virtually worthless.

[Bridewell]

He wasn't a policeman, if the ID occurred after July 89.

No, but he might have been in Sussex.

[Elamarna]

Pierre, I despair.


More nonsense in the post I am sorry to say!

You really are not dealing with this at all well.

To start with, I am not interested in the marginalia. And what do you mean by "event"?

So you are not interested in the marginalia ?

Ok, I accept that, therefore there is no need to post is there.?


But of course you are interested, it is part of the grand conspiracy theory, the cover up of your man.

As the months have gone on, the ideas become less and less reasoned and thought out.


Dealing with the responses is now so easy!


The "event" is of course the murders.

You know full well what I am referring to, the response is unworthy of you and non professional.

Impossible question. A "would-have" question. "Would have an effect on". X>Y. We have no data.

What a response, I need say no more

Depends on what you mean by "public". Other people may have seen it before this, we do not know.

Again asking what words mean, truly desperate stuff!


It is fast reaching the point where debating with you is a pointless, but easy process.

Your mind is closed, and so many holes appear in the arguments.

However rather than defend the position put forward; you argue over the meaning of words.

Such a non professional approach, what a shame!




On to your response:

Do you have any data to back up the suggestion it was seen by others before the publication ?

Who were these others?

If these others had seen the notes, did they have any effect on the public’s view point?

By the way do you know when Kosminski's name was first linked to the case?

Publicly, I mean?


I do not mind people making mistakes, and getting the odd item wrong, I certainly do it from time to time.

However this is now far too common.

T|he lack of basic knowledge on the case, is just as glaring today as it was a year ago.



Is the response given above, not the same as my question above, it is a "may" question.

As YOU say, we do not know!


In the absence of any data to say some one had seen Swanson's WE MUST assume no one had, to say other is pure invention!

But a Kosminski lived until 1919, didnīt he?

Pray tell us what does Kosminski's date of death has to do with a document YOU claim was written to shift the blame from some unknown to Kosminski.

The telling point being it was not made public, until almost 70 years after Kosminski's death, a point which is not addressed, only platitudes in reply.

It is an historical fact that we do not know what he did with the book, isnīt it?

Wrong.

We know the book was left in the possession of the immediate family, at the family home.

It was they, the family, in the 1980's decided to put the information in the public domain.


Basic research not done!

Not what one expects from an academic historian.

Who knows.

What a cop out!

Not even prepared to look at how, if true, it destroys the hypothesis!

What hypothesis do you mean? There are many. But no hypotheses without sources, so you are wrong.

Forgive me, we have to spell out every word for you,or you give reply’s like this.

The hypothesis that Swanson was moving the blame from someone he knew was the killer, to kosminski, whom according to you was an innocent.
( He may have been, but you have given NO coherent argument to promote that view.).

You have NO sources to back this idea, I am not wrong my friend, I am honest.




steve