'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Ally]

I find it beyond credence that Paul would state that the provenance and marginalia were beyond question authentic if he had not in fact seen the book with his own two eyes.

So Paul at the very least would have been aware of the discrepancies in pencils even if the document examiner wasn't and it is surprising to me that no mention was made. And as color photographs were in existence in the 90's, I find it a surprising choice that photocopies were used, rather than something that could show the marginalia and its discrepancies in detail.

[Jeff Leahy]

I find it beyond credence that Paul would state that the provenance and marginalia were beyond question authentic if he had not in fact seen the book with his own two eyes.

So Paul at the very least would have been aware of the discrepancies in pencils even if the document examiner wasn't and it is surprising to me that no mention was made. And as color photographs were in existence in the 90's, I find it a surprising choice that photocopies were used, rather than something that could show the marginalia and its discrepancies in detail.

Yes clearly Paul had examined the original in detail and spoken at length with Jim Swanson. Indeed when i first met Paul around 2001 he clearly described the different colour pencils to me, at that time. So i don't believe it was a secret.

I might conclude that perhaps it just wasn't seen as 'overly' important given the provenance, and the fact that Paul observed other similar marginalia created by Donald Swanson.

There is only so much space in the A to Z as I understand but that is another arguement. I'm not Paul's mentor as some have observed and you really should put these questions to him yourself.

Personally i found both his and Stewart's accounts of Old Jim Swanson absolutely fascinating, perhaps you could do a podcast on it's discovery, if either would co-operate.

all the best

Pirate

[Ally]

The A-Z apparently found enough space in the entry on the Swanson Marginalia to recount the Kosminski theory, even duplicating some bits of it that was already in the Kosminski section, and in the Kosminski section duplicating the marginalia in its entirety, but they couldn't find the space to include a sentence about the differing pencils being used? If you've double booked all the pros and left out the cons, its not good to say that space couldn't be found.

And as Stewart and Keith had already noted the pencil discrepancies and the document was then being re-examined, isn't 2001 a little late in the game to be suddenly discussing it?

[Chava]

Going back to the assertion that Swanson's daughter never read the book, I'd be interested to know in what condition the book was when it was finally read. Was it bound around with a cord and the knots sealed with wax, and a signature scrawled over the wax saying Donald Swanson My Book. Was there any photographic record of this interesting parcel?

In other words, (1) Is there any proof beyond hearsay that Swanson's daughter did not read this book? and (2) Why should she not have read this book? Apart from there perhaps being some content that might bring a blush to the cheek of the young person, why on earth should Swanson's daughter not have read this book? It seems to me the only grounds for making such a statement would be to refute any possibility of tampering or forging. Swanson's daughter didn't write anything here. Why, she didn't even read the book! Yet this assertion was made at the outset, before anyone had had time to suggest any kind of dirty work at all. I find that interesting and a little worrying...

[Jeff Leahy]

Again Ally you need to take this up with Paul. It is not mentioned in my copy of A to Z which is dated 1994.

However I cant ever remember not knowing about the colour differences. I’m certain that I have seen colour copies of the marginalia; indeed I thought at one time they were on casebook. However when I went looking a few weeks ago I couldn’t find them.. Its just one of those well known facts as far as I’m concerned and I’ve never given it to much thought. It is after all, easily explained.

As I noted yesterday if you were going to create a forgery ‘Why use a different colour pencil when you’d gone to so much trouble to fake it'. It wouldn’t make sense.

But I agree it wouldn’t take much space to include in the text, just, “in a different colour pencil” would do, I would imagine that it has been added in the new A to Z.

Again take it up with the authors. Perhaps your Pod-cast should be on the new book.

Authors love to sell their new releases.

The bottom line as far as I see it is that they concluded that the Marginalia was genuine and they are probably correct in that assessment, so it’s a storm in a tea cup.

You might get a few awkward moments of entertainment out of it.

All the best

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Going back to the assertion that Swanson's daughter never read the book, I'd be interested to know in what condition the book was when it was finally read. Was it bound around with a cord and the knots sealed with wax, and a signature scrawled over the wax saying Donald Swanson My Book. Was there any photographic record of this interesting parcel?

In other words, (1) Is there any proof beyond hearsay that Swanson's daughter did not read this book? and (2) Why should she not have read this book? Apart from there perhaps being some content that might bring a blush to the cheek of the young person, why on earth should Swanson's daughter not have read this book? It seems to me the only grounds for making such a statement would be to refute any possibility of tampering or forging. Swanson's daughter didn't write anything here. Why, she didn't even read the book! Yet this assertion was made at the outset, before anyone had had time to suggest any kind of dirty work at all. I find that interesting and a little worrying...

This reads like wild speculation Chava. I don’t ever recall either Stewart or Paul re-calling Jim Swanson as anything other than a charming and credible host. I don’t see anything surprising about someone not being particularly interested in a book by Robert Anderson, not exactly light bed time reading.

My guess is that the story was from Jim, and it seemed like a credible story given the known facts. All either Paul, Keith or Stewart could do was use there intuition.

If you dig through casebook I’m sure Stewart gives a detailed account of his meeting and impression of Jim Swanson somewhere? and the story he gave?

I don’t think the book was rapped in old string or came out of the ground to voices of choirs, its just and old book with scribbles in the margin.

Pirate

PS. I've just had a look but cant find the posts I refered to however I'm sure they existed at some piont. possibly lost in the crash.

[robhouse]

Ally posted: "I am less interested in what the Davis report did or did not say as I am in why the discrepancies were not put flat on the table from the get-go for all to judge and make up their own mind about."

Presumably the authors of the A-Z either did not notice the discrepancies or they deemed that they were not important enough to comment on... or a combination of the two. Maybe they sort of noticed them, but assumed (for whatever reason) it was still clearly Swanson's writing. In any case, it is clear that they did not suspect fakery.

There seems to be a tendency here to throw blame at the authors of the A-Z for something they didnt do, implying either gross neglect or intentional deception... I think the implied accusation is that a discussion of the discrepancies was left out of the A-Z because both Begg and Fido have ulterior motives for wanting the marginalia to be authentic...

In my opinion, these accusations are rather unfair to Mr Begg, Mr Skinner, or Mr. Fido.

RH.

[Ally]

Rob,

Well in absence of a reason given by any of the authors of the A-Z, I am afraid all we can do is speculate about its omission.

However, I believe all the authors of the A-Z are reasonably intelligent men, and I cannot believe that they would not have considered the differing pencils to be important, if for no other reason than it suggests that the marginalia, supposedly "continued from page 138" was not in fact written as a continuing whole.

The word "Continued" suggests it was, the differing pencils prove it was not. So there is a discrepancy there. If in fact the differing pencil was used only in that one instance, that is in fact important information.

Supposing that Swanson did in fact author the marginalia entirely, the scenarios are as given:

Swanson writes the marginalia on p 138, goes to lunch, comes back picks up a different pencil, finishes that bit of marginalia, then closes the book and when making marginalia on the rest of the pages, goes back to the original pencil.

Or, Swanson added the marginalia at some later date, after he'd finished marginalizing the rest of the book.

The first scenario is suspect and improbable, the second scenario begs the question why? What happened to initiate a second read through and an addition? And when did this addition occur? At what age? Why wasn't it included originally?

[Natalie Severn]

Jeff,
You keep saying to "take it up with the authors" but where are they?
The silence of both Martin and Paul is quite deafening! Have they both scarpered or something?

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
You keep saying to "take it up with the authors" but where are they?
The silence of both Martin and Paul is quite deafening! Have they both scarpered or something?

This is rather a silly comment Nat.

As you well know Paul has, for various reasons (which I am happy to discuss in Private) preferred not to post on casebook for a long time. He does however regularly give up time to appear on pod cast, which is a casebook (sponsored) concern? I think if Ally has questions for Paul that would be the place to bring it up.

To my knowledge Keith has never posted on a website, it really isn't his thing. And Martin is a regular poster on casebook but only posts before term time these days. He will be back soon.

To try and suggest the authors of A to Z are not concerned about casebook posters or their concerns is simply incorrect..

Something’s just take a little time. And Paul has been kept remarkably busy on other more pressing matters in recent months.

All the best

Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Well Jeff, I can only say I admire you for bluffing this out so bravely on their behalf.
Best
Norma

[Ally]

Jeff,

The fact that Paul doesn't choose to post on the boards does not prevent anyone from asking any question that they choose to ask on the boards. Neither is the podcast mine to decide which topics will and will not be discussed. The podcast is Jonathon's and it is up to him to decide which topics will be discussed. However, I dont think the podcast should be used as anyone's personal soapbox or as a means to get out of answering questions they would prefer not to answer in the medium they were asked.If Paul doesn't choose to participate in the open debate of the forums, he already has Ripperologist where he can choose to present his argument aloft, if that is his choice.

But I am not going to stop asking questions here because people would prefer not to answer them.

[jmenges]

I think if Ally has questions for Paul that would be the place to bring it up.

I agree with Ally here.

Stewart started this thread in this location and it's here for people to respond. We try our best to not let message board discussions steer the subject matter of the podcast.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

Bluffing out what exactly? Were not talking about Osma Bin Ladin here, we're talking about Paul Begg, are you seriously suggesting his hiding in a bunker somewhere afraid to come out?

A good percentage of posters here are probably in regular contact with him anyway, he is rather involved with a well known publication on the subject..you could just write to the editor?

come on Nat, your not really being serious are you?

Yours Jeff

PS OK Jonathon message received but to suggest that Paul is unable for comment because he chooses not to post here is silly. He simply is available via other mediums (And I dont mean the psychic kind) and other sites to my knowledge but I dont know if I'm aloud to say that?

[jmenges]

Right.

Suffice to say that the podcast can be contacted if listeners have further questions for the participants on the topics we discuss. It's not in the business of forwarding personal emails along to Paul Begg.

JM