'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Jeff Leahy]

So you haven't posted under your name things that have been written by Paul Begg?

Chris you keep pushing this and the answer is none of my recent posts have anything to do with Paul Begg.

If you are trying to infer something from an Argument I had with Dan Norder many months ago (in fact well over a year ago) in which I did seek Paul's advice (and incidentally was proven correct) then the answer is that I did definitely para-phraze him on a couple of occasions. Yes.

However I don’t see what this has to do with the current discussion. It may have been inferred that I was taking advice from Paul but this is not the case….Is that Black and White enough for you and can we return to Topic now?

Pirate

Cheers Ally, then we can get on...

[Ally]

Chris,

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Chris]

Jeff

Obviously you are uncomfortable discussing this, and to be honest I'm not surprised. But that's not my fault.

You are saying that in the past you have posted things under your own name that were actually written by Paul Begg. But that you have not done that on this thread.

Is that correct?

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Obviously you are uncomfortable discussing this, and to be honest I'm not surprised. But that's not my fault.

You are saying that in the past you have posted things under your own name that were actually written by Paul Begg. But that you have not done that on this thread.

Is that correct?

I think I was perfectly clear, as you would say, go back and read it again.

Pirate

PS And I'm not uncomfortable, its simply irrelevant.

[Chris]

Jeff

Thank you.

I did think it was reasonably clear, but I wanted to give you the chance to dissent if my understanding was wrong.

[Jeff Leahy]

JeffThank you.

I did think it was reasonably clear, but I wanted to give you the chance to dissent if my understanding was wrong.

Excellent, well done. We have established that my posts here have nothing what so ever to do with Paul Begg. Now what piont are you trying to make?

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

You really do seem remarkably confused at times.

I was responding to your five-paragraph essay on the theme of "Pirate Jacks posts are his opinion and his wording alone." That's why I quoted that sentence of your post. You could look on it as a kind of clue to the reader as to what I was responding to...

[Jeff Leahy]

Chris

I clearly am confused. And it all seems way off thread. I'm not being rude but I have work and things to do...

If there is anything requarding the marginalia you wish to discuss i will catch it later...must dash now

All the best

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Germane

...
And this is largely academic as Dr Davies seems to confirm its 'Probably' Swanson's hand writing anyway.
Have you tried asking Paul yourself? If Paul says its been confirmed as genuine by the Home Office document examiner, then it probably was..
All the Best
Pirate

As I have already pointed out, we have at least advanced a short way with this as 'Pirate' is not now stating it as a hard fact, but is using the qualifier 'probably'.

But, of course, this is not the point, nor is it the problem here. The problem arises from the fact that the 'Swanson marginalia' was not properly examined way back in 1988 when it was first published, in a Ripper book, in Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper the Uncensored Facts. If it had been properly examined, such an examination would have revealed the fact that two different pencils had been used and that the writing on the rear endpaper differed slightly from that in the marginalia. This is fact and is not something that I have plucked out of thin air. And it is very relevant for any assessment of the notes, any consideration of possible fakery aside, as it does reflect upon the veracity of the content and such problems are better cleared up as early as possible anyway.

Now I had not considered that fakery might exist and as may be seen I tend towards all the notes being genuine. Indeed, proof of this can be seen by merely looking at any of my published books in which I have never raised the idea of fakery in this regard. The surprise for me came when I first noticed these inconsistencies on seeing the book back in 2000 at Jim Swanson's home. Of course I realised that pointing out these problems would cause Jim Swanson some concern and there was no evidence that anything suspicious existed as regards fakery.

After Jim passed away, and after no small amount of time agonising over it, I decided that I should merely present my factual findings as regards the annotations in the book to others interested in the case. I did this some years ago before 'Pirate' was ever frequenting the boards. And I did so making no suggestion of fakery. And what happened? I was immediately accused of casting doubt on the 'marginalia' and, heaven forbid, even suggesting that they may have been faked (which I hadn't). I was cast as the villain of the piece for merely telling the truth.

I was vindicated recently when my own findings of 2000 were confirmed by Dr Davies, and indeed enlarged upon. So how can 'Pirate' state that 'this is largely academic'? It is germane to the whole interpretation and assessment of the 'marginalia.' It hadn't been done in 1988, nor in the ensuing years.

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

...
If you are trying to infer something from an Argument I had with Dan Norder many months ago (in fact well over a year ago) in which I did seek Paul's advice (and incidentally was proven correct) then the answer is that I did definitely para-phraze him on a couple of occasions. Yes.
...
Pirate

A good piece of advice to 'Pirate' would seem to be that he should never reply with someone else's words unless he makes it clear that he is doing so. Another piece of advice is that perhaps he should avoid arguments where he does not have a grip on the facts involved.

[Cap'n Jack]

'If you are trying to infer something from an Argument I had with Dan Norder '

Most people want a cheque from Dan Norder not an argument.

[Robert]

Going back to Anderson :

Every field has its specialisms and sub-specialisms. Martin's an expert on Anderson. Stewart's an expert on police methods and procedure. Justifying a judgement can be virtually impossible. In the end, someone will say "You'll have to take my word for it - or not." But before that point is reached, progress can be made through debate and the citing of examples and counter-examples. That's one reason why academics have conferences. These boards are a perpetual conference.

That's why it's a pity Martin can't be here to discuss Anderson. I don't blame him if he can't manage it - life must come first. But it's a shame nonetheless.

[jmenges]

Now let's be clear about this, shall we? Dr Dick Tottie (spelling?) who compared the photocopies for Paul did so at Paul's request. Unless Paul tells us exactly what he asked the Dr, such as 'Do you think you could take a look at a couple of photocopies, one being from a report in the official files that we know was written by Swanson, and the other the notes in the book, and let me know if you can say that both were written by Swanson?'; and to know what, exactly, the examiner replied, then it is difficult to say exactly what to make of it.

I've asked four times on this thread a similar question to you about Dr. Davis. How much if anything he knew about your questions before he made his examination, and if his published comments could in any way have been tainted by those raising questions. If he was told about a bumpy carriage ride instead of age and or another hand involved etc.

Not that I care anymore... just sayin'.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

A good piece of advice to 'Pirate' would seem to be that he should never reply with someone else's words unless he makes it clear that he is doing so. Another piece of advice is that perhaps he should avoid arguments where he does not have a grip on the facts involved.

It’s advice that you have given before Stewart, and it would be good advice if I were an apprentice or would be scholar. However I am neither of these things, I am simply a journalist trying to get at the truth. My only interest is the identity of JtR. And my conclusion is that chasing experts with a knowledge of Anderson is the best place to start.
As for grip on the Facts I will leave the details to the experts, my interest is only in the big picture and the story.

Perhaps you could answer Jonathon's question, I'm also interested.

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

I am simply trying to get at the truth. My only interest is the identity of JtR.

Noble aspirations, Jeff - but those twin goals might militate against one another. </friendly observation>