'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Nothing to see]

Wow. This is too much for me. I don't know about it and I don't want to know.

Swanson. Marginalia. Is the topic of this thread.

Can we get back on topic? I'll have to go back a few pages for that.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’ve had many meetings with Paul over the years. I’m stating I have always been aware that the marginalia was written in different colour pencils or at least for a long time. However Paul is not the only expert I’ve spoken to over the years.

I’m fairly certain that I met with Paul in the Plantation and spent an afternoon discussing his meeting with Jim Swanson. I can’t be certain of the precise date of that meeting. I was aware at that time the marginalia was written in two pencils so it was not a revelation to me. Certainly I’m surprised that it seems to be causing so much fuss. I thought that the use of two pencils was widely known.

But yes, now I rack my brain from memory I cannot be certain of the date and I apologise if my memory has lead people to believe that my meeting with Paul was at an earlier date than it actually was. Certainly I first met Paul around 2001/2002. The specific meeting about Jim at the plantation was at a later date. I certainly haven’t deliberately tried to miss lead people. If you check my posts in context you will see the language I used was ‘uncertain’ on exact times, I was working from memory not a diary.

However if you would like me to apologise about mixing up, being uncertain about, specific dates, I am happy to do so.

I apologise. Jeff

[Chris]

Jeff

Well, it sounds to me as though it's anything but a question of "precise dates". It sounds as though you're not even sure whether you heard about the different coloured pencils from Paul Begg or from elsewhere, and that you don't think that whatever discussion you had was when you first met him.

I just don't understand why, that being the case, you would post:
... when i first met Paul around 2001 he clearly described the different colour pencils to me, at that time.

But, as I suggested before, let's leave it at that.

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris I've been posting on casebook pretty regularly since 2002/3 and the Marginalia is not a new topic of conversation. However the sun is out and I have some painting to finish

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

This is still really personal and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't want to know either.

I want to discuss the Swanson Marginalia. That's it.

[Ally]

Well I happen to find it extremely interesting that when Jeff was defending Paul's scholarship, he had such a precise and vivid memory of this occurring. Now, a couple days later, that memory has apparently completely vanished.

Memory being unreliable doesn't cause an event to vanish in the space of a couple of days. If you can't remember something that happened years ago, that could be put down to a person's memory being unreliable.

A person saying they remember something clearly, then poof, a couple days later, it's suddenly not there; that's something else altogether.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well I happen to find it extremely interesting that when Jeff was defending Paul's scholarship, he had such a precise and vivid memory of this occurring. Now, a couple days later, that memory has apparently completely vanished.

Memory being unreliable doesn't cause an event to vanish in the space of a couple of days. If you can't remember something that happened years ago, that could be put down to a person's memory being unreliable.

A person saying they remember something clearly, then poof, a couple days later, it's suddenly not there; that's something else altogether.

Ally “God knows my own memory is an unreliable thing these days.”

[Ally]

As I said, an unreliable memory explains not remembering something that happened years ago.

It doesn't explain having two completely contradictory memories, in the space of two days.

[Jeff Leahy]

No I didn’t. I was recalling something that happened years ago. I was clearly uncertain as I suggested you should go ask Paul yourself. I also said to NAT Paul wasn’t in hiding.

It appears I was vindicated in that: Paul was, as I suggested, available for comment..

He also hasn't stated the exact time, date , second he was first aware that the marginalia was written in two different pencils.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;73348]No I didn’t. I was recalling something that happened years ago. I was clearly uncertain as I suggested you should go ask Paul yourself. I also said to NAT Paul wasn’t in hiding.

It appears I was vindicated in that: Paul was, as I suggested, available for comment..





Well Paul"s tone was quite supercilious ,as though the opinion of others in this matter was of little importance.
But it must be understood that nobody"s word is so much more important than everybody else"s that what they say concerning the Ripper can just be accepted as fact on their "say so".The truth of the matter is that anything anybody may claim concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper will be held up for fair testing these days,whether they are authors, researchers,historians whoever- including those who used the centenary to present new "suspects" or new "evidence".Nothing and Nobody is or should be, beyond full "accountability" regarding the evidence they present.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well Paul"s tone was quite supercilious ,as though the opinion of others in this matter was of little importance.

What ever his 'tone' he simply wasn't in hiding as you suggested.

But it must be understood that nobody"s word is so much more important than everybody else"s that what they say concerning the Ripper can just be accepted as fact on their "say so".The truth of the matter is that anything anybody may claim concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper will be held up for fair testing these days,whether they are authors, researchers,historians whoever- including those who used the centenary to present new "suspects" or new "evidence".Nothing and Nobody is or should be, beyond full "accountability" regarding the evidence they present.

This sounds like a political address? Are you drawing some sort of battle line? The last Ripper suspect V will never know?

and are you trying to suggest Begg is beyond account-ability just because he is clever than the rest of you?

It all seems very strange to me?

Pirate

PS can some of you please try and connect your ironic humour buttons when reading my posts?

[Stephen Thomas]

All these words,remarks and suspicions arising from one obvious conclusion,(mine at least)that a fellow named Anderson included in a book,a claim that was false.That claim being that a person was identified as being 'Jack the Ripper".A claim that has no official support or evidence,physical or documentary,to support it.

Hi harry

This is the crux of the matter and, of course, what's obvious to some is not obvious to others. It's obvious to me that there was absolutely no point in Anderson saying what he said if there was no truth in it unless it was to cover up something else, Fenian activity or whatever. What was to be gained? How can you be so certain the claim was false? He was one of the men in the know and he said what he said.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

I hope I'm reading you right.

What amazes me is why Anderson, Monro, Macnaghten, Abberline, Reid, Littlechild, Phil Lewer, Jan Brewer, Harry Hawkins, Hugh Davy, Philly Whitpot, George Pausley, Dick Wilson, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all didn't simply say "We don't know".

For some reason they all wanted to be "The Man Who Knew". They all dropped hints. They all said, "If I told you, I'd have to kill you."

Why? There has to be a reason.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

For some reason they all wanted to be "The Man Who Knew". They all dropped hints. They all said, "If I told you, I'd have to kill you."

Why? There has to be a reason.

My 2d's worth - none of them knew.

[Jez]

My 2d's worth - none of them knew.

Quite agree. All this "telling tales out of school" and "hot potato" stuff.... none of them had a clue, of course.