There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Monty]

H

Under the freedom of information act it surely does thats one line i have been pursuing for several weeks now

Yes, I'm aware of that. However what makes you think its a public document?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil,


Moreover (and I hope I insult no one here) the News of the World and the Telegraph have very different readership bases and the NotW likes direct stories that are easily grasped. The Swanson Marginalia is actually not a straightforward tale and as has been pointed out, the scribblings do not directly finger Kosminski.

Don.

You are right the scribblings do not firmly point the finger at Kosminski. Its a shame those that champion him as the ripper dont look at it in the same light.

[Trevor Marriott]

What prompted him in 1981 was that that was when the annotations were discovered following the death of his aunt late the previous year. As I understand it, he was paid a fee by the News of the World for the right to publish the document, which is why he didn't approach any other newspapers for some time. When he finally did, he asked the News of the World for its permission.

I think it does need to be remembered that a journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations and was aware of their contents. If the suggestion is that a sensational detail was later added before arranging for them to be published by another newspaper, the person doing that would be taking an incredible risk. At any rate, I find it incredible.

I have posted this before but i recently made enquiries with the news of the world who to date have no record of any involvement deal or transaction regarding the book.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can I ask you a question, Trevor?

And before you answer it (as I hope you will) I will answer the same question myself.

If an expert, or experts, of your choosing were to conduct further tests and declare themselves 100% satisfied that Swanson wrote all the pencil notes, how would you react?

As for me, I'd actually be slightly worried, because reputable experts rarely if ever express 100% certainty that their verdict is the correct one.

If you would share my worries in that regard, I wonder what, if anything, could ever make you believe that your suspicions were needless after all.

Love,

Caz
X

I would be happy either either way. I like others want to get to the truth at the moment there are to many un answered questions. To many ifs, buts,whys and wherefores.

If it it all genuine then as far as Kosminski is concerned it wouldnt change my opinion that Kosminski was no more involved in the murders than the likelihod of you and i ever agreeing on casebook

Investigating is all about not just proving something but also dis proving the same.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor states -Its not a private document it was commisssioned by the Met Police.

You have evidence of that Trevor?

And if the Met did have it commissioned does that give you the right to see the results?

Monty

Under the freedom of information act it surely does thats one line i have been pursuing for several weeks now

[Admin]

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.

[Ally]

I stated the story behind the red lines.

Do read it

Monty

My brain is tapioca. I have looked back three times now and can't find where you did this, could you point it out?

I don't think the story is all that important, but it would be interesting regardless.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

Thank you for your opinion. Two editors can disagree yes. I have no problem with that at all. But as stated by Stephen Thomas, The NOTW had a very clear reputation back then. As regards the "easily grasped" viewpoint, I only partly agree. The easy bit is that an ex-policeman from the time of the murders named "Jack the Ripper", in writing, thereby dispelling nearly 100 years of theories, including the Eddy involvement, which was STILL hot news in 1981, in the mind of the public.
I didn't say I didn't trust anyone Don. That is an assumption of your own. I didn't even talk about trust, infact. All I stated is that for me, personally, alarm bells ring.
Whether we like it or not, the book is highly controversial.

best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

Did the NOTW ever get round to bugging Swanson's phone?

[Supe]

Phil,

I've been in the newspaper racket for longer than I care to admit and Jason is absolutely right. Two otherwise skilled and experienced editors can often disagree completely on an item's newsworthiness, especially something as esoteric as the Ripper. Heck, even with a total Jack the Ripper focus at Casebook Examiner, Jennifer Shelden and I will sometimes be at odds about what is important and what isn't.

Moreover (and I hope I insult no one here) the News of the World and the Telegraph have very different readership bases and the NotW likes direct stories that are easily grasped. The Swanson Marginalia is actually not a straightforward tale and as has been pointed out, the scribblings do not directly finger Kosminski.

You are entitled to believe what you want, but there are good reasons other than tarting up the Marginalia in the interim why a NotW editor might not be interested in 1981 and a Telegraph editor woud in 1987. Some skepticism is healthy, but not to trust anyone makes for an awfully lonely and frightening existence I woiuld think.

Don.

[Monty]

I stated the story behind the red lines.

Do read it

Monty

[Ally]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with questioning anything and everything in this world.

Assuming the only reason for promoting the marginalia in the first place was to big up the idea that Swanson had succeeded where nobody else had in identifying by name the big one - Jack the Ripper himself - why would anyone with half a brain not have pencilled in the words:

'Kosminski was the murderer', if the scribe was not Swanson himself?

Could it be because Swanson had used the word suspect earlier in the unquestioned portion of the marginalia and *if it was a deliberate forgery* it's easier to forge what you already have a sample of? Nah that's too logical, that couldn't be it.

[Ally]

Obviously the fact the story behind the markings was not made public indicates the matter is private.

Monty

Then why was it shown on a public documentary?

Interesting, isn't it? It's quite all right for everything under the sun to be shown about the Swanson marginalia as long as one toes the party line. We can show it on documentaries, we can discuss it in books, and we can even discuss it on the forums, as long as we pay lip service to it being genuine and beyond question.

[Ally]

If you can’t see the delicious irony in practically every word you have written above, Allykins, then you don’t want to see it and nobody will be able to help you see it, least of all me.

Delicious, I tell you. Delicious.

But I won’t labour the point, as I don’t want to distract you more than necessary from your evidently enjoyable business of using lots of noise to pour scorn and ridicule on the very idea that the red lines could have been added in all innocence to a book containing wholly authentic examples of Swanson's handwritten notes.

Hello Caz, I know that you prefer to make jokes than actually read, but no where have I poured "scorn and ridicule on the very idea that the red lines could have been added in all innocence". I have said, several times that the red lines could absolutely have been added in all innocence. But what can no longer be claimed is that the Swanson family would have noticed anyone making additions to the legitimate marginalia.

What's delicious, is you berating others for their word choice, while picking up every single word, and not a jot of overall meaning.

Wherever would anyone get the idea that the ‘sacred cow’ as you call it was dead a long time ago in your jaded eye, and this is merely a fresh opportunity for you to dance on its grave with delight, only pretending to be interested in having the 'facts' to examine?

At the very least, I am trying to examine the facts and not start a pissing contest with everyone involved. It's a refreshing change of pace for me.

And wherever would they get the idea that an intelligent and objective examination of all the facts, leading to resolution and concensus, is just a tad unlikely to take place on a message board where there has been a ‘defecation’ of the document in question and ‘dispersions’ cast, on top of all the grinding of axes and personal pissing contests of which you speak?

Well thank you very much for proving that no intelligent examination of the facts will occur with you on the thread. We already knew it, but it's nice to have it right out there.

Love,

Cazzikins
X

Right backatcha.

[Stephen Thomas]

But it still doesn't answer the question..why wait 6 years with a sensational, world beating story? It makes no sense, to my ears. Nobody, I suggest, would sit on that hot news for 6 years. And I also suggest it to be reasonable to suggest that The News of the World would not turn that story down for the "change of mangagement" reason. It's a world beater. Naming the greatest unsolved murder mystery killer. No newspaper would turn that down for that reason. Especially not a sensationalist newspaper like the NOTW.

Now there you go asking the right questions again, Phil. You and I and all other Brits of a certain age know exactly what the NOTW was about and the role it played back then and the fact that they would not publish this bombshell story I consider most strange.