There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Chris]

Ally

Obviously we have very different opinions. But I think we both already knew that.

[cerburusuk]

While I may not have contributed many posts on this site, it is not through any lack of interest in the many and varied discussions, arguments, debates etc; I have often found that I simply had nothing of any substance to add to the plethora of information that can be found in abundance throughout the casebooks forums. That being said, I am still an ongoing member of this website, and as such am entitled to read and, in cases I find applicable, submit input to whatever thread I am watching at any given time.
Therefore, when I read that certain things – and by certain things I am of course referring to the defacement of the Swanson marginalia – might have been better served being discussed in private, away from the boards, by a select group of individuals, in effect prohibiting the vast majority who also use and contribute to casebook from being able to follow and comment upon the aforementioned defacement, I have to speculate if this site is becoming elitist.
This website was constructed by Mr. Ryder as a place where like-minded people could discuss and evaluate the available evidence, formulate theories and debate all things pertaining to the Ripper murders. To my mind it shouldn’t matter a jot if you are a published writer on the subject or a checkout operator at the local Tesco store; if you reside in the UK or the Alaskan wastes! As long as you share an interest in these crimes, be it professional or layman, everyone should be regarded as an equal.
I am well aware that in all walks of life friendships are made and factions formed between groups who share similar passions, and these circles sometimes share private and personal information between themselves, excluding the larger congregation who are not included in their number. That is all well and good in cases of private and personal matters. But the Swanson book does not fall into either of those categories. It is not the personal property (with the exception of Mr. Swanson obviously) of any one group of people, that they can decide whether to share anything pertaining to the item in question with others who have similar interests in it.
This book has been described as possibly one of the most important finds appertaining to the Whitechapel Murders to come to light in over 20 years. Everybody who has an interest in Jack the Ripper and visits these boards has the right to know that a valuable historical document has been defaced, and also, who was responsible for the act!
As for who may have been responsible there are only a few possible suspects:
1. Neville Swanson, or a member of his household.
2. An employee at the museum.
3. A researcher who obtained access to the book.
4. A member of the Production team.
I cannot think of a single reason for Mr. Swanson or his family, to deface the book after they had given it to the Police for their museum. It would be utter madness for one of them to ask for it back, use a red felt pen to alter it, then return it!
I think the same can be said about a employee at the place it is kept. What would it gain? If caught they would loose their position instantly, and quite possibly face prosecution. I cannot rule it out entirely, but it would seem highly unlikely given the risks and penalties involved.
That leaves, to my personal way of thinking, either a researcher or a member of the Production team. This is my personal opinion. I have no evidence, and I am making no accusations against anyone. I just hope that the question of who and why is fully investigated, resolved and made available to all who use this site.

[Supe]

Cerburusuk,

Since a well-respected researcher has asserted he saw the red marks a full two years ago, to suggest any of the recent documentary production team had anything to do with the defacement is clearly wrong.

Don.

[cerburusuk]

My apologies to the members of the Production team, I missed the post where Chris explains that he saw the marking at an earlier date. As I said in my post I am not pointing the finger at any one person or persons. I was merely questioning who would have been able to acomplish the defacement and their possible reasons.
I keep forgeting to sign these posts. Please overlook my rudeness.
Sean.
(I remembered this time.)

[Monty]

Cerburusuk,

The post you placed is the exact reason why I voiced my concern over the style of the original questioning.

To clarify, as Don states, Chris admitted to seeing the markings 2 years prior to the doc being in the hands of the BEL team. I trust an apology will follow.

Also, the marginalia is not in the public domain. Whilst it is in the hands of the Met museum it is not open for public viewing nor will it be whilst this kind of hysteria and accusation continues. Viewing will be restricted to academics and professionals.

Monty


PS Cerburusuks and my posts crossed and I therefore miss their gracious apology, sorry Cerburusuk.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Monty;162226]Cerburusuk,

Also, the marginalia is not in the public domain. Whilst it is in the hands of the Met museum it is not open for public viewing nor will it be whilst this kind of hysteria and accusation continues. Viewing will be restricted to academics and professionals.

I find it kind of funny that you seem to view the hysteria as what will keep the document locked up. There has been no hysteria and it's been locked up. And while viewing has been "restricted to academics and professionals" one of those academics or professionals has apparently defaced it!

How is the current state supportable? We should all keep quiet that it's been defaced because the people who have allowed it to become defaced might get upset? You'd have to be a contortionist to follow that logic.

[Monty]

Ally,

It seems contortionism is something you are skilled in, but I won't tell.

My point is that the chances of the marginalia being viewed or examined diminshes with every flying accuastion.

Again you seem to believe my posts refer to the defacement itself rather than the clarification of how it became defaced.

Please, ask if you don't understand before posting

Monty

[Ally]

Okay...let me ask you this. You own a book of important family and historical signifcance. You have entrusted that book to a museum. Then you find out, that while it has been supposedly under their care and keeping, it has become defaced entirely without your knowledge.

Would you keep the book there?

[Chris]

Ally

Do you have any evidence that these lines were added while the book was in the keeping of the Crime Museum?

I have seen none whatsoever.

[Monty]

Ok, we do not know the actual course of events relating to the red lines appearing on the marginalia.

However, with regards your actual hypothetical scenario, I'd honestly answer No.

Monty

[Ally]

Ally

Do you have any evidence that these lines were added while the book was in the keeping of the Crime Museum?

I have seen none whatsoever.

Hi Chris. I do not know who or when the book was defaced. I am throwing up a hypothetical scenario. I think as Monty has said, most people upon finding out that their valuable item had been defaced in the museum's keeping would withdraw that item.

We can presume that Mr. Swanson was informed of the defacement at approximately the same time it was discovered about two months ago.

The book is still in the crime museum.

I, of course, draw one conclusion from that. Everyone else is free to draw theirs.

[Natalie Severn]

Okay...let me ask you this. You own a book of important family and historical signifcance. You have entrusted that book to a museum. Then you find out, that while it has been supposedly under their care and keeping, it has become defaced entirely without your knowledge.

Would you keep the book there?

Ok,so suppose someone with mental health problems[eg OCD ]---possibly a fixation about red pens or something,got hold of the book and did this? What then? Its not so far fetched as you might think.

[cerburusuk]

Surely the Police themselves will be holding some investigation into how, when and where a document entrusted to their care was vandalised? If I were Mr. Swanson I would demand an explanation!
I wonder what the reaction of people on this site would have been if someone had defaced the original photograph of the Kelly crime scene?
Sean.

[Chris]

Ally

You wrote "while viewing has been "restricted to academics and professionals" one of those academics or professionals has apparently defaced it." Were you not referring to the Crime Museum then?

Edit: And now we have another poster saying that "a document entrusted to their care" was "vandalised." Even though there is no evidence that that's what happened. Ridiculous.

[Ally]

Ok,so suppose someone with mental health problems[eg OCD ]---possibly a fixation about red pens or something,got hold of the book and did this? What then? Its not so far fetched as you might think.

What does that have to do with my hypothetical scenario? The specific person and their reasons for doing so are less important to me than the implications of when it occurred.

Either it occurred while in the museum's care or it occurred prior to handing it over.

I care less about the "who" or "why" and more to the "when".

If you found out your valuable document had been defaced while in someone else's keeping does it matter whether it was done by an OCD person or a child scribbling their lines.

If the document was undamaged when it was given to the museum and you found out it was damaged, who would logically keep it there?

And it is apparently more than just the red lines. There has apparently been tracing over the actual marginalia as well.

Chris,

In all the time the marginalia has been available, it has never been open to the public. I include the family in my assessment of academics, only because they apparently have enough interest to do documentaries about it.