There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Ally]

Sorry I realize I didn't make my point clear so I wanted to elaborate. In his book, Fido quoted the McN with the McN spelling. So if a forger was going to forge something from a person in McN's time, and if the forger had at all smarts, he would have used the contemporary spelling.

Or Swanson, who we are presuming couldn't remember the name originally, suddenly remembered it, complete with contemporary spelling, and jotted it down or he somehow had access to a document that had the contemporary spelling, like the McM.

I have been on the computer too much in recent days, my brain has turned to scrambled eggs and I don't know if I am making sense. I've edited this twice, and I still don't know if I am clear on what I mean.

[Ally]

That is interesting isn't it. I love it when I make good points I don't even know I am making!

Upon thinking about it briefly:

It is a nod regardless, to whomever writing that portion having more than just a casual interest in the subject recalled from a remembered conversation. One of my suggestions was that someone with an interest had a conversation with Swanson about it, borrowed his book, read his notations and added their own, but the McN spelling does indicate that whoever wrote the notation would have had more than just a passing fancy in the case and had done their research.

Unfortunately it doesn't really point one way or the other. I do find the McN spelling to be interesting and unlikely that even DSS would have pulled the "correct" spelling out of his hat in an 'aha' moment. So either he researched it, which is plausible if it were bugging him, or someone else did.

If it was a forger with more than just a passing interest in Ripperology, they might have used the earlier source instead of Fido: McN.

[Chris]

So if we speculate that he didn't really "think" while writing the marginalia, couldn't get a hold of the "strange foreign name", then went away, had aha! moment and then decided to go back and write the strange sounding foreign named, spelling it completely correctly.

That's actually quite an interesting point about the spelling of the name. In his book, Martin Fido uses the spelling "Kozminski," which I think probably has the best claim to be considered the "correct" spelling (his death was registered under the name Kozminski, for example). In the marginalia, the spelling "Kosminski" is used. Of course, that doesn't prove anything, because that's the same spelling used in the Macnaghten memorandum. But I think if I had been a forger inspired by Martin Fido's book, which was researched from contemporary records, I should probably have used Fido's spelling rather than Macnaghten's.

[Ally]

Interestingly, somebody mentioned that "no good deed goes unpunished in Ripperology". How about when Phil H puts out his Dutfield Yard photo? - the result is accusations of Photoshopping and fakery.

I agree that was abhorrent. And I was cussing out the perpetrator who did that as well. But it's interesting isn't it that he's banned from the boards, for exactly that kind of behavior, and people lament his loss!

But it is also telling that my conduct on the boards in regards to that photo, which was "congratulations on your find, I'll wait til I see it for myself before making any decisions", is often cited as being just as abhorrent as calling the thing a fake. I was flat out told that because people who had seen it said it was genuine, I should just believe them and not bother with actually waiting til I saw it for myself. And while I respect the opinions of the people who claimed it was genuine, and believed that they were convinced, that doesn't put aside my "seeing is believing" mentality.

So there is an air of elitism that can affect the boards and an air of "we say so, therefore, it is so".

There are two parts to that Dutfield's photo story.

[John Bennett]

To clarify, as far as I'm aware there is no cartel. Obviously there are certain peope within the fields who are turned to by other less knowledgeable people/organisations but that hardly consists a cartel.

Again, this thread throws up the tiresome accusations of 'closed-shop' Ripperology and I am with Neil on this one. I think it is naive of people to assume that just because somebody discovers something, it needs to be put out on a message board. Sometimes there are reasons not to and not sinister conniving ones either. It may not be the best time, or the material may have been given by somebody who doesn't use or know of internet Ripperology and may not want stuff sprayed out all over the world. There must be many reasons.

Ego, position, totem poles, pairings, groupings, behind the scenes goings-on, s******ing, suggestions, non-transparancy, accusations, pride, envy...somewhere in that lot lies a tale or two.

I venture that in most cases it is just people who are friends, who know each other and have shared interests. No conspiracy of silence, no coveting of info for the inflation of personal ego, just shared interest.

Interestingly, somebody mentioned that "no good deed goes unpunished in Ripperology". How about when Phil H puts out his Dutfield Yard photo? - the result is accusations of Photoshopping and fakery.

I put up a photo of the 17th September letter, transparently for all to see and what happens? I am accused of doctoring the image to prove a point. No wonder new material, especially if there are people out there gunning for a confrontation, doesn't readily appear the second it is found. Once bitten twice shy?

The problem is that when like minds come together to debate information, especially in person, reasoned debate often ensues. Internet Ripperology allows absolutely anyone who wants to join in an opportunity to do likewise, but sometimes results in people throwing accusations and insults into the mix, with the consequences as seen on this thread.

There is all sorts of research going on in this field and not all of it is going on the message boards for WHATEVER reason and that reason is particular to the person who went out of their way to acquire the information in the first place. More often than not, it eventually enters the public domain anyway.

Excuse the uncharacteristically long post, but just getting it off my chest.

JB

[Ally]

Its a bit more than that.

Monty

No I don't believe it is If you'd like I could go through every exemption one by one but that would be a waste of time. We can clearly see there's no correspondence with her Majesty, there's no threat to national security, there's no formulation of government policy on the line.

So the sole reason would be about law enforcement and those exemptions all appear to be in place so as not to interfere with an ongoing investigation or prevent the apprehension of a criminal.

So if the Freedom of Information exemptions are invoked, what possible portion of them would be germane?

[Monty]

My comment was general. If you took it as a personal insult aimed at you, that's between you and your god.

Ahh, me and thee you mean.

Monty

[Ally]

My comment was general. If you took it as a personal insult aimed at you, that's between you and your god.

[Monty]

I just looked over those exemptions. I don't think any of them would apply unless the report contains something that proves fraud and might interfere with an arrest. But that surely wouldn't be the case, because then there'd be an active investigation, wouldn't there?

Its a bit more than that.

Monty

[Monty]

This thread is temporarily closed. We have received three report posts on it in less than 24 hours. We will address the individual concerns as soon as we can get them to them.

When this thread re-opens, follow the rules in place on other contentious threads on the boards. Do not engage in personal attacks, insults or slurs. If you cannot debate the topic without attacking the people, you will be prevented from debating it.

The thread is now reopened.

A reminder Ally.

Monty

[Ally]

As a former Fraud Investigator I also know there are 23 exemptions regarding the act, from section 21 to 44, so I wish you luck.

Monty


PS For the record Trevor and Phil, I was polite and transparent. And please address me directly rather than via vieled posts.

I just looked over those exemptions. I don't think any of them would apply unless the report contains something that proves fraud and might interfere with an arrest. But that surely wouldn't be the case, because then there'd be an active investigation, wouldn't there?

[Ally]

Since we are talking about ego and pride and all sorts of things on this thread besides the actual topic: Why is it that the larger ones ego is, the more sensitive it is to the littlest prick? My "The ego is a hunk of Bubble Yum" theory has never seemed more valid.

[Chris]

"If you are not happy with that answer feel free to do you own enquiries."

That's all very well, but you did choose to post this information - which appears to contradict Jim Swanson's account - and said that you considered it "very significant."

If in fact the News of the World doesn't retain this type of correspondence for thirty years, then there is no contradiction and no significance. I think in fairness you should have mentioned the fact that you didn't ascertain whether the archivist would expect the correspondence to have survived.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

As this is the second time you have posted the statement about the News of the World having no record of any correspondence with Jim Swanson - something you said previously that you considered "very significant" - please could you answer the question I've asked a couple of times now?

Are their archives sufficiently complete that they would expect to have such a record, or not?

If not, then obviously the lack of such a record isn't significant at all.

I can only relay what I have been told from the archivist that as it stands there is no record.

If such a deal had been struck then presumbably a reporter would have prepared a story which may have been documneted and perhaps kept for future publication. There is also the question on monies supposedly paid to Swanson might that have also been recorded.

I can only put forward questions I cant answer them in this case

One such question would be what has Nevel Swanson retained to confirm hsi involvment with the NOW ?

If you are not happy with that answer feel free to do you own enquiries.

[Chris]

Trevor

As this is the second time you have posted the statement about the News of the World having no record of any correspondence with Jim Swanson - something you said previously that you considered "very significant" - please could you answer the question I've asked a couple of times now?

Are their archives sufficiently complete that they would expect to have such a record, or not?

If not, then obviously the lack of such a record isn't significant at all.