There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't

"Thank you that wasnt to difficult was it."
God you are an idiot. That shows he mentioned who the copyright holder was a hundred and twenty posts ago. You would think being such a genius detective you might have been able to figure that out by now.

Don't beat about the bush Rob - say what you mean.

[Trevor Marriott]

"Thank you that wasnt to difficult was it."

God you are an idiot. That shows he mentioned who the copyright holder was a hundred and twenty posts ago. You would think being such a genius detective you might have been able to figure that out by now.

Well unlike you and Chris i dont sit watching and reading casebook 24/7.

I have a proper life !!!!!!!!!!

I know my capabilties do you know yours ?

[mariab]

Trevor Marriott wrote:
Well unlike you and Chris i dont sit watching and reading casebook 24/7.
I have a proper life !!!!!!!!!!
I just LOVE this process of reasoning.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott wrote:
Well unlike you and Chris i dont sit watching and reading casebook 24/7.
I have a proper life !!!!!!!!!!
I just LOVE this process of reasoning.

I sometimes wonder if some have anything to reason with !

[robhouse]

You have a proper life, and yet you want to be appointed a "special constable" and so you can investigate the Swanson marginalia. Uhhhh... ok. Sounds to me like you are living in a fantasy realm.

[Trevor Marriott]

You have a proper life, and yet you want to be appointed a "special constable" and so you can investigate the Swanson marginalia. Uhhhh... ok. Sounds to me like you are living in a fantasy realm.

Always a method behind my madness but of course you have no sense of reasoning to see or understand what was behind my course on conduct. If you are anyhting of experienced researcher you should have read my previous posts then the full picture would be clear to you. But no you put pen to paper before engaging your brain.

Perhaps others who do on here will explain it to you as I am sure they will have worked it out.

[robhouse]

I have read your previous posts, unfortunately.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Trevor,

I've got no dog in this hunt, but who knows, a second opinion might move it UP the scale.

From a 3 to a 2. Or even a 1.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

I have read your previous posts, unfortunately.

seems you didnt read them thoroughly enough,

There is a special offer on at Specsavers at the moment

[Trevor Marriott]

Good morning Trevor,

I've got no dog in this hunt, but who knows, a second opinion might move it UP the scale.

From a 3 to a 2. Or even a 1.

Roy

Thank you for your support

[Tecs]

Hello all.

Sorry for being a week or so late, but there was a problem setting my account up.

I was wondering if somebody like Stewart who knows the people involved might be able to answer this. It seems that there is a pattern developing with Ripperologists. Those who meet somebody involved with bringing a piece of "evidence" to light always seem to be much more persuaded by them and their arguments than those who don't. Colin Wilson met the people involved in the Maybrick diary, the Barretts and Albert Johnson the owner of the watch, and was convinced of their honesty. I believe he implored Melvin Harris to meet them too but Melvin declined saying that to meet them would break the investigators protocol, or words to that effect. Paul Begg met Joseph Sickert on several occasions and admits that he liked him and got on well with him. Interesting then that he is less accusatory than Martin Fido, who calls Sickert an outright liar.

What I was wondering was, firstly, is Martin Fido possibly falling into the same trap as others have? ie he met Jim Swanson several times and liked him, therefore we are not to be surprised that he cannot believe that there was any jiggery pokery,especially at least not from Jim Swanson.

Secondly, just out of interest, does anybody know if Martin Fido ever met Sickert and just failed to succumb to his charms or did he never actually meet him?

And thirdly, was Melvin Harris actually right? Should investigators never meet the people they are "investigating," lest they be swayed by human nature?

Thanks.

I look forward to getting involved.

[packers stem]

Welcome Tecs
I feel that the impartial authors who tend to work around known facts are more likely to be a good judge of the character of the storyteller than someone who is trying to push a theory or promote ther own book.
Determined theorists,i fear,would be likely to go into the meeting with the preconceived notion that the person is a liar and would be unlikely to be persuaded otherwise.

[Stewart P Evans]

Relevant Points

...
I was wondering if somebody like Stewart who knows the people involved might be able to answer this. It seems that there is a pattern developing with Ripperologists. Those who meet somebody involved with bringing a piece of "evidence" to light always seem to be much more persuaded by them and their arguments than those who don't. Colin Wilson met the people involved in the Maybrick diary, the Barretts and Albert Johnson the owner of the watch, and was convinced of their honesty. I believe he implored Melvin Harris to meet them too but Melvin declined saying that to meet them would break the investigators protocol, or words to that effect. Paul Begg met Joseph Sickert on several occasions and admits that he liked him and got on well with him. Interesting then that he is less accusatory than Martin Fido, who calls Sickert an outright liar.
What I was wondering was, firstly, is Martin Fido possibly falling into the same trap as others have? ie he met Jim Swanson several times and liked him, therefore we are not to be surprised that he cannot believe that there was any jiggery pokery,especially at least not from Jim Swanson.
Secondly, just out of interest, does anybody know if Martin Fido ever met Sickert and just failed to succumb to his charms or did he never actually meet him?
And thirdly, was Melvin Harris actually right? Should investigators never meet the people they are "investigating," lest they be swayed by human nature?
Thanks.
I look forward to getting involved.

Some relevant points are raised here. I don't see a 'pattern developing with Ripperologists', I merely see the situation as it has always been.

First we have to recognise exactly what constitutes 'evidence', something which many Ripper theorists seem unable to do. We also have to understand provenance and not least of all we have to have some understanding of human nature and its many foibles. Then we have to appreciate where the various players in the drama are 'coming from', this helps in understanding their motives and arguments. There has been a massive change in Ripperology since the dawning of the computer age and to compare the current situation with the state of Ripperology as it was, even as late as the 1980s, you really need to have experienced it and to have watched its development closely.

Many authors and Ripperologists are amazingly naive and have fixed 'agendas'. It is a complex subject and it is necessary to have a deep knowledge of it before you can begin to appreciate all its complexities. The best ally for anyone delving into the subject is a liberal helping of common sense.

The 'diary' debacle threw up the whole gamut of all that is worst in Ripperology and was not helped by the fact that Feldman was an aggressive bully who liberally threw cash around if he felt it would further his cause. Many of those who are the leading proponents of the 'diary' today were not even on the scene in 1992-1994, the crucial years in 'diary' history.

However, I do not look upon the subject of this thread, 'the Swanson Marginalia', as comparable with either the 'diary' or the Royal nonsense. The query raised here is whether or not there was any 'jiggery pokery' on the part of Jim Swanson. I had the pleasure of meeting Jim Swanson in 2000 and I had never regarded the 'marginalia' as anything but genuine, based on what I had read and been told about it. Jim was charming and very keen to help us. He showed me the annotations in the Anderson book and for the first time I was able to properly assess them for myself. It was then that I noticed the differences in the pencil used and a slight variation in the handwriting. Points that I felt were very relevant in any proper assessment of the material. In putting my findings into the public domain at a later date I was not suggesting that Jim Swanson had tampered with the annotations in any way, I was making public the fact that certain anomalies existed that had been previously missed.

[mariab]

Stewart P. Evans wrote:
It was then that I noticed the differences in the pencil used and a slight variation in the handwriting. Points that I felt were very relevant in any proper assessment of the material. In putting my findings into the public domain at a later date I was not suggesting that Jim Swanson had tampered with the annotations in any way, I was making public the fact that certain anomalies existed that had been previously missed.
Thus, if I understand it correctly, the slight variations in the handwriting in the Anderson book most probably pertain to a different timeframe than to a different hand?

[Tecs]

I was not suggesting that Jim Swanson had tampered with the annotations in any way, I was making public the fact that certain anomalies existed that had been previously missed.

Stewart.

Many thanks for your reply.

Regarding your own views, I am absolutely aware that you have never personally doubted the marginalia and you must get sick of constantly reaffirming this.

When I first heard of the doubts that some people had raised over the marginalia, (not you Stewart, I'm thinking of other examples,) I didn't realise that the main focus was on Jim Swanson himself. Maybe I missed the point totally but I thought people were inferring that somebody much more recent had been involved, possibly to bolster a book or new theory?

I would love to know what you saw in Feldmans office by the way, as you alluded to on the podcast, but I suppose you will tell us if you want!

Thanks again.