Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Its not as though Swanson did this for a court of law.All he seems to have been doing in the marginalia was pondering about who the suspect was---and his jottings sounds perfectly acceptable---but its the end paper notes that surprise,because ,blow me down,why that angel who blessed Abou Ben Adam with a crucial bit of information appears to have "re-appeared" and whispered "Kosminski" in his ear! Oh Well, Anderson told us he had a hotline to a Higher Place but he never let on those angels were at hand to help his pal Swanson out ,even guiding his "end notes" with the name of "who did it"!
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 10-14-2010, 06:05 PM.

    Comment


    • Simon Wood wrote:
      If the authenticity of the end-paper notation is inconclusive, then the Crime Museum refusing to make public the report containing the element of doubt–whilst at the same displaying the notation as genuine–presents something of an ethical dilemma.

      I only saw a couple of pages from the document posted here on casebook, but (after following up what several experienced Ripperologists said in this thread) it very much looks as if the authenticity of the sources should not be doubted. The Museum's refusal to make the report public (as typically Museums do) is due to sheer bureaucracy and self-importance, not due to questions of authenticity.

      Simon Wood wrote:
      There have been precipitate calls to enter the marginalia and endpaper notation into the historical record, but to do this would endow them with perhaps undeserved authenticity. The best all-round solution, therefore, is for the Crime Museum to display a simple caveat with Swanson's book.

      Completely agree. And we've had the exact same problem with the (stupid) Fondazione Rossini in his natal city. (Until yours truly pulled a Lara Croft and got pix of the goodies. Which would probably NOT work in the Scotland Yard Museum, as it might result in imminent arrest! Might be an interesting experience, as I've never been arrested by Scotland Yard before... Where do they take one, and do their constables look cute?)
      Best regards,
      Maria

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        But the point of the matter is now that there are other tests which may prove or disprove its authenticiy, whic a lot of people dont seem to want to take place.

        Is there or is there not a need for total transparency? I belive there is perhaps Alam McCormick from the Crime museum should stand up and be counted. [Can't you count to one if he's sitting down??] Because the reply he has sent me in relation to my letter to the commissioner is un acceptable and would indicate a lack of transparency or what you might call a deliberate attempt to hinder my investigation.

        As I have said before I will not stop till all my lines of enquiries have been either completed or as wil; probably be the case that the met will again choose to not co-operate.

        And I do no much more about this whole issue which I am not prepared to divulge on here at his time. Lets see whose running for cover in the headlights !
        Hi Trev,

        Have you thought that maybe the Crime Museum might take a letter from you more seriously if you got someone to help you write it? Just wondering.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Hi Trev,

          Have you thought that maybe the Crime Museum might take a letter from you more seriously if you got someone to help you write it? Just wondering.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          A good thought Caz maybe i wil leave out the pics and just stick with the written text.

          Remember what you lack in some qualities you make up with others what are yours ?

          It is not a matter for the crime musuem or Alan Mcormick he is merely an employee of The Met Police. It is for the Commissioner to make high profile decisions.
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-16-2010, 01:18 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            It is not a matter for the crime musuem or Alan Mcormick he is merely an employee of The Met Police. It is for the Commissioner to make high profile decisions.
            Actually, if I understand things correctly, the volume containing the annotations is still owned by a member of the Swanson family, who has loaned it to the Crime Museum. Obviously there isn't going to be any scientific testing done without the owner's consent.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Remember what you lack in some qualities you make up with others what are yours ?
              I couldn't possibly say - this is a family show.

              Talking of which, if I were the Swanson family member who owns the volume and has generously loaned it to the museum, I'd invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Deposited

                Originally posted by caz View Post
                ...
                Talking of which, if I were the Swanson family member who owns the volume and has generously loaned it to the museum, I'd invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.
                ...Caz
                X
                I believe that Keith Skinner was responsible for arranging with the family to have the book deposited with the Crime Museum. Generous though the gesture may be, I would hazard a guess that it is now more difficult for an individual to examine and photograph the said volume than it was for me ten years ago when Jim Swanson graciously allowed me to do so.
                SPE

                Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
                  I believe that Keith Skinner was responsible for arranging with the family to have the book deposited with the Crime Museum. Generous though the gesture may be, I would hazard a guess that it is now more difficult for an individual to examine and photograph the said volume than it was for me ten years ago when Jim Swanson graciously allowed me to do so.
                  I cannot see why there is all this negativity by some members. These clearly dont want anyhting further done with the marginalia. I have to ask why ?

                  I am in ageement with a posting by Phil Carter who quite rightly raises concern regarding the News of the World issue which I posted. Surely the News or the world would have printed it. This suggestion that the news of the world changed management and didnt print it is ridiculous. Or could the reason be that it did not contain the name of Kosminski and was of no interest. But then in later years the telegraph did print it with Kosminski named.

                  Now to me thats a line of enquiry which needs further investigation. As stated before The News of The world have no records of James Swanson or the sale of rights by him. So did it or did it not happen ? and did it contain the name of Kosminski or was that added before The Telegraph got hold of it.

                  There is a clearly and issue surrounding the authenticity. The first handwriting expert Mr Totty could not come up with a definitive conclusion, likewise Dr Davies the same. They both mention minor differences. But I am no handwritng expert but the differences I and others can see I would suggest are not minor.

                  As I have stated there is another forensic test not based on handwriting which can be done. This may as I have said previoulsy may prove or disprove its authenticity. Having regard to that and in the interest of historical accuracy that should be considered. How do we know that the relatives of Swanson would not agree to it being re examined ?

                  With the exception of Stewart the other band of merry men Messrs Begg and Skinner have been noticeable by their absence from this thread.

                  I any event this marginalia is not that important as we know that both Anderson and Swanson would have known the name Kosminski from the memo in 1894 and of course there are major doubts about how that came about and the content.

                  Having said that it would be nice find out the truth. But I guess some people cant handle the truth.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    As stated before The News of The world have no records of James Swanson or the sale of rights by him. So did it or did it not happen ?
                    I hope Charles Nevin (the Telegraph journalist who first published the marginalia) won't mind my mentioning that in an email to me last year he wrote that he did remember Jim Swanson showing him a note from the News of the World [presumably giving him permission to let another newspaper publish the document]. So we know that there was correspondence between Jim Swanson and the News of the World, whether or not the newspaper can find a record of it now.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris View Post
                      I hope Charles Nevin (the Telegraph journalist who first published the marginalia) won't mind my mentioning that in an email to me last year he wrote that he did remember Jim Swanson showing him a note from the News of the World [presumably giving him permission to let another newspaper publish the document]. So we know that there was correspondence between Jim Swanson and the News of the World, whether or not the newspaper can find a record of it now.
                      Hearsay not conclusive.

                      You seem to have more than a vested interest in this thread It would seem you know more than you are letting on. The word Transparency comes to mind

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        You seem to have more than a vested interest in this thread It would seem you know more than you are letting on. The word Transparency comes to mind
                        Your suggestions are untrue and - frankly - offensive.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chris View Post
                          Your suggestions are untrue and - frankly - offensive.
                          Are they, you sure ?

                          Comment


                          • Mr Marriott

                            As is the case with most contributors here, Ripperology is just a hobby for me, not a money-making concern - quite the opposite in fact. I have no favoured suspect to advocate, and no book to sell. Normally the results of any research I do are posted on Casebook so that they are freely available to anyone who is interested - though of course I will not post copyright material without permission, and of course I treat private correspondence as private.

                            So I can't conceive what "vested interest" you think I could have in this or any other aspect of Ripperology, and I do find your innuendo about "transparency" offensive - risible though it is, coming from someone who has just said "I do no much more about this whole issue which I am not prepared to divulge on here at his time"!

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=Chris;151013]Mr Marriott

                              As is the case with most contributors here, Ripperology is just a hobby for me, not a money-making concern - quite the opposite in fact. I have no favoured suspect to advocate, and no book to sell. Normally the results of any research I do are posted on Casebook so that they are freely available to anyone who is interested - though of course I will not post copyright material without permission, and of course I treat private correspondence as private.

                              So I can't conceive what "vested interest" you think I could have in this or any other aspect of Ripperology, and I do find your innuendo about "transparency" offensive - risible though it is, coming from someone who has just said "I do no much more about this whole issue which I am not prepared to divulge on here at his time"![/QUOTE

                              The reason for the quote was not specifically levelled at you but at those who may well have not been as transparent as they should have been.

                              I came into this Ripper investgation late and my intention was to do a thorough and professional investigation. Many have trodden that path previous but have perhaps been thwarted or may simply have not had the knowledge and experience to be able to assess and evaluate the mass on inforamtion there is.

                              I consider that trying to clarify the authenticity of documents that many have sought to rely on is an important part of the overall investigation and as such i would expect everyone to concur on that point and to want to help for the sake of Ripperology.

                              But when I keep hearing members here suggest that there is no need to do this or its alreday been done so we must accept, it is incomprehensible. All enquiries shold be carried out diligently and expeditiously especialy where there is a doubt.

                              Clearly there is a doubt about the marginalia. One such doubt is who authorised and paid for the forensic examination by Dr Davies. Was it Begg and his merry men, The Met Police, James Swanson or was it authorised by Alan McCormick and why cannot that report be released into the public domain ?

                              Call me old fashioned but all of this together with all the other stuff regarding the memorabilia has awoken my suspicious mind. So if anyone out there can satisfactorily allay my suspicions then please feel free.

                              Comment


                              • Aim

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Hearsay not conclusive.
                                You seem to have more than a vested interest in this thread It would seem you know more than you are letting on. The word Transparency comes to mind
                                Trevor, please take it from me that I have never found Chris anything but honest, objective and lacking in ulterior motives. It is safe to accept anything he says as correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. His aim, like mine, is merely to get at the truth - whatever that may be.
                                SPE

                                Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X