There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

Seaside Homes, not necessarily for policemen.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

At the time, there were sixty-nine such establishments in the British Isles.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

By "such" establishments, do you mean for police or for other people?

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

At the time, there were sixty-nine such establishments in the British Isles.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Did the police send a mentally ill Jewish suspect called Aaron Kosminsky to a
Convalescent Police Seaside Home?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

Regards, Pierre

I have found examples of other types of Seaside Homes in the British Newspaper Archive. Therefore we can not know if the Seaside Home referred to by Swanson was a place for policemen.

Regards, Pierre

[MysterySinger]

And if Kosminski, who was his accomplice at the Kelly murder? Why would the marginalia not refer to an accomplice?

[Pierre]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss purely the fact that there is something amiss with the Swanson Marginalia. Any post that can be summarized as "Davis and HO said it was, so it was" will be reported as being off-topic.

This is for people who actually want to debate the topic and not get bogged down with sycophantic muppets who want to argue idiocy all day and not look at the actual facts. If I am the only one on this thread, so be it, probably better that way, but I want the facts out there, not buried in 30 pages of stupidity.

So here are the facts as we know it, that might indicate the Marginalia needs closer scrutiny:

1. The important marginalia, containing the name Kosminski, is written on an end paper and in a different pencil than can be found anywhere else in the book.

2. This was never mentioned when the marginalia was first or subsequently reported on.

3. One of the authors is now claiming they never really examined the marginalia before pronouncing it genuine.

4. The original examination by the HO used photocopies, not the actual document so the differing pencils was completely eliminated. This despite it not being considered best practices to use photocopies to determine accuracy.

What can be determined from these facts, is that at the very least, the Kosminski marginalia was written at a completely separate time than the rest of the marginalia in the book, which begs the question, Why? Why precisely would Swanson, if he was in fact the author of the marginalia, have felt compelled to go back and add it at some later date?

If Swanson was not the author of the marginalia, then it seems likely that it would have to have been forged by either his daughter or grandson, something that no one involved is willing to speculate or consider.

So either it's really Swanson's, written at some later date, which opens up its own can of worms, or it's not, which entirely invalidates the Marginalia.

Either way, the idea that the Marginalia can just be accepted as irrefutable, is now entirely destroyed.

Did the police send a mentally ill Jewish suspect called Aaron Kosminsky to a
Convalescent Police Seaside Home?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

Regards, Pierre

[Ally]

Thanks to Chris and Trevor both for clarifying my questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ally

I don't know on what basis the report was commissioned (in fact the FSS didn't give me any information at all about who had commissioned it).

Given what the FSS said, it doesn't seem likely to me that they will now give permission regardless. But if anyone else thinks it is worth trying, they can do such just as easily as I can. If the FSS does give permission, I shall be only too happy to send the scans to Stephen, as I had hoped to nearly two years ago.

The FFS cant give permission without the client who commissioned it giving their authority. I have been down this route weeks ago, Now waiting to see what the Met Say.

[Chris]

Ally

I don't know on what basis the report was commissioned (in fact the FSS didn't give me any information at all about who had commissioned it).

Given what the FSS said, it doesn't seem likely to me that they will now give permission regardless. But if anyone else thinks it is worth trying, they can do such just as easily as I can. If the FSS does give permission, I shall be only too happy to send the scans to Stephen, as I had hoped to nearly two years ago.

[robhouse]

No, I never saw the document in person. I thought I had been pretty clear on that.

[Ally]

So you never saw the document in person either?

As for the rest, I am well aware of the difference between graphology and analysis. I suppose if you are going to use Wiki, as a source, I can use Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2447/is-handwriting-analysis-legit-science

[robhouse]

Ally,

Incidentally, I did not know that there were red lines on the marginalia until the last few weeks, when everybody learned it. In fact, I first heard it from you.

As to the color pencil. What it does suggest, to my mind, is that all of the marginalia (with the exception of the paragraph at the bottom of pg 138) AND the endpaper notes were written in one sitting.

Again, handwriting analysis to determine the authenticity of a document IS a science. It is a part of the forensic science of Questioned Document Examination. It is not a pseudoscience or guesswork. I think you are confusing this with graphology.

RH

[Ally]

Sorry, my brain works at a different pace than my fingers and I wasn't clear on what I meant.

If am following correctly, please let me know if I am not, Davies said the FSI commissioned it and therefore gave up his claim to copyright. McCormick is merely an agent of the institution. He did not pay for it out of his own private funds. McCormick cannot possibly hold the copyright.

An agent of an organization that commissions something never holds the copyright himself. It is held by the organization or the author, but not by the person who facilitated the transaction.

So why is McCormick's permission being sought? The FSI holds the copyright, and they can grant regardless of McCormick.

In other words, maybe the FSI should be re-contacted, and McCormick bypassed entirely.

Either the FSI holds the copyright, or no one does. If no one does, it can be posted.

[Chris]

Just out of curiousity, who EXACTLY holds the copyright?

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=162590&postcount=543

[Ally]

Ally

That is what I was confirming. As you know, Rob traced and made contact with Nevill Swanson, and as a result Nevill kindly arranged for me to look at the book at the Crime Museum.

Yes I know. It just suddenly occurred to me that here was another person who knew that the book had been altered and made no mention of it.

Just out of curiousity, who EXACTLY holds the copyright?