There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[robhouse]

The problem is that, as you know, the Swanson marginalia have already been examined by a professional handwriting expert, who, being careful (and a bit wimpy?), chose to call the results of his examination “inconclusive“. Trevor Mariott and Rob House (if I'm correct) would like to have the document re-examined.

Hi Maria,

No, I am not one of those who want to have the document re-examined. Nor do I think that the handwriting expert, Davies, characterized his results "inconclusive." I think this is how his results were characterized by someone else.

Rob H

[Natalie Severn]

I know you weren't suggesting a “forensic“ investigation. What I was trying to stress is that another “independent“ handwritting specialist with no particular knowledge in Ripperology might end up doing more harm than good

Perhaps, Maria, perhaps......

[mariab]

Does anyone know if the Aberconway version of Macnaghten's memorandum now bears similar red line markings?

I hope that you're not voicing suspicions about Paul Begg being responsible for the red line markings?
(With apologies for the silly joke.)

[mariab]

I am not one of those who want to have the document re-examined. Nor do I think that the handwriting expert, Davies, characterized his results "inconclusive." I think this is how his results were characterized by someone else.

Oh, OK. I'm pretty sure I understand.

[Ally]

The handwriting analysis was not conclusive, and hardly a slam dunk.

If one looks at the actual marginalia you find this:

and died shortly afterward ----

Kosminski was the suspect --

DSS

I have always found the dashes strange. To me the dash after "died afterward" indicates he was signing off, and finished.

Then we have another line, and another sign off dash.

Why do the dash one line ahead?

The grammar doesn't even flow. Suspect died shortly afterward--Kosminsky was the suspect. It is a bizarre construction and sounds false to a single narrative flow.

If you look at it, from a grammar, from a punctuation, from a spacing perspective, "Kosminski was the suspect" appears to have been a latter addition.

Otherwise why the ---- on the two lines?

It was always quite easy to say, well yes, Swanson added it later. Except now we know that the book has had additions by people not Swanson. And since those additions can be bright red and bold and still be entirely overlooked, there is no legitimate way of claiming that all latter additions were still Swanson's.

It has always seemed surreal to me that the name Kosminski was a tag on. In the marginalia it was always "the suspect", "the suspect". He didn't say, Kosminski was admitted to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards, it was all unnamed until this very dramatic end line...TA DAH!

Kosminsky was the suspect! Flourish, sound trumpets.

If he knew the name all along why didn't he use it? Why, "the suspect", "the suspect" then Tah DAH!

In my opinion this all points to "Kosminsky was the suspect" being a later addition.

[caz]

Spare us from yet more amateur document examiners who think they know better than the professionals.

So one has to ask, why wasn't the defacement brought to light?

Er, can anyone think of a better way of doing just that, than offering it up to be shown on national tv to a huge audience?

I don't know, but I'm guessing it had to be part of Paul Begg's diabolical plan to expose a bitter enemy of his (the type to hide behind pseudonyms, I shouldn’t wonder - and one who has friends who know but don't tell) who had clearly wormed their way into the Swanson home, to add the red felt tip lines, while laughing maniacally and twirling their moustaches*, to render the marginalia useless as evidence in the eyes of the more precious, imaginative souls in the field who thrive on making an hysterical fuss over an historical footnote.

[*Yes I know, but I swear it wasn't me. I’ve been clean shaven since the op ten years ago.]

Little does Paul know that I was a fly on the wall - probably - when he first saw those red lines, saw the light and realised that his best bet was to make no comment himself but to let channel five viewers see them and form their own conspira… er, conclusions:

"Infamy, infamy, someone's got it in for me", was all he said, and he said it with feeling.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Hi Caz,

Picking out one single line from a whole and presenting it as the sum of the argument?

That specific question was in an overall context of how the additions passed without notice on the documentary, leading anyone who viewed the documentary to believe that everything presented on the page was Swanson's. Which is not the case.

Showing the page to a national audience but failing to mention that not everything being shown is authentic is not bringing the defacement to light. The vast majority of people viewing the documentary have no way of knowing what is original and what is not.

What was shown was not the Swanson Marginalia. It was the Swanson Marginalia with additions by persons unknown.

[Stewart P Evans]

Rat's Rear End

Spare us from yet more amateur document examiners who think they know better than the professionals.
Er, can anyone think of a better way of doing just that, than offering it up to be shown on national tv to a huge audience?
I don't know, but I'm guessing it had to be part of Paul Begg's diabolical plan to expose a bitter enemy of his (the type to hide behind pseudonyms, I shouldn’t wonder - and one who has friends who know but don't tell) who had clearly wormed their way into the Swanson home, to add the red felt tip lines, while laughing maniacally and twirling their moustaches*, to render the marginalia useless as evidence in the eyes of the more precious, imaginative souls in the field who thrive on making an hysterical fuss over an historical footnote.
[*Yes I know, but I swear it wasn't me. I’ve been clean shaven since the op ten years ago.]
Little does Paul know that I was a fly on the wall - probably - when he first saw those red lines, saw the light and realised that his best bet was to make no comment himself but to let channel five viewers see them and form their own conspira… er, conclusions:
"Infamy, infamy, someone's got it in for me", was all he said, and he said it with feeling.
Love,
Caz
X

On 5 December 2010 I posted the following on JTRForums in a discussion about improving Ripperology.

‘There is no doubt that many posters hide behind anonymity and the use of pseudonyms. That was fine once upon a time but I think that the time has now come that everyone posts under his own real name – or else leaves the boards. This should reduce the amount of aggression that is shown – everyone would then have to stand up and be counted as him/herself.
I guess that there will be those who disagree with this and I am sure that the administrators will throw this suggestion into the trash can if they don’t agree with me.’

A discussion followed and in the event it was decided that the status quo should stand and that those who chose to post under a pseudonym should continue to do so for various reasons. Obviously the administrators were capable of dealing with personal attacks and abuse if they needed to be dealt with (deleting posts, banning etc.).

I consider myself as a Ripper ‘enthusiast’, for want of a better description but, unfortunately posting as SPE or under my full name sets me up, at times, as a target or for undue significance being attached to what I may say. It is sometimes very difficult for me to even voice my opinion for fear of upsetting someone (very easy to do in Ripperworld) and for my words to assume much greater significance than, in fact, they actually have. This said others may, perhaps, understand why the use of a pseudonym would be particularly useful for me in voicing my opinion without causing too much upset or controversy.

Thus, some time ago, I had an account set up on Casebook forums in the name ‘Gideon Fell’ in order for me to voice my opinion without causing too much distress as not so much significance would attach to what I said. Those who know me know that I am not afraid to say what I think under my own name but, as has been seen in my exchanges with Paul Begg, we have, I think, unduly hurt each other and we are both too old for that. I have known Paul for many years, before the boards ever existed and we certainly do not always agree on things Ripper. Apropos of this Paul and I recently agreed that enough was enough and we would stop having our ‘battles’ on the boards. We do, actually, have quite a lot in common.

Moving on to the recent Channel 5 documentary produced by Jeff Leahy, I obviously followed the pre-broadcast hype and read of how accurate it was going to be and how it was going to knock every other documentary ever made into a cocked hat. That is, rather, inviting people to find errors and give their opinion of what they have seen. To do this under my own name would cause undue resentment and possibly hurt to some and would carry more weight than if said by an unknown (or ‘non-name’) in Ripperology, such as ‘Gideon Fell’. After all, Gideon Fell could simply be told that he didn’t know what he was talking about and be dismissed out of hand. As the decision had been made to retain pseudonyms I felt that I could, at least, make some comment as an enthusiast on the documentary that I had watched. This I did.

My comments were not abusive, were not personal attacks, did not derogate anyone or ‘spoil’ anything. They were honest opinion and comment on perceived errors. They were as follows –

‘very good and with few mistakes.’

‘The chap in Berner Street was carrying a modern briefcase and not a Gladstone bag.’

‘The CGI streets looked good but they were too clean. They would have been filthy and knee deep in horse poo.’ (I here admit that I am not au fait with CGI techniques and base my opinion only on other examples of CGI I have seen).

‘They showed Swanson plonking away on his typewriter but weren’t all his reports handwritten’.

‘Didn’t they show Cross and Paul finding Nichols body together? Cross found it first then Paul came along.’

‘The leather apron was shown found lying in the middle of the backyard at Hanbury Street. Surely it was under the tap on the wall? I thought I heard the voiceover say that 40 Berner Street was on the east side of the street but it was actually on the west side. I might have misheard that though.’

‘It all appeared quite brightly lit and didn’t convey how dark the streets actually were. I can’t find a reference for Mrs Long saying that the man she saw was wearing a low crowned felt hat. I thought a deerstalker was mentioned in the papers at the time.’ (This point was later thrashed out on JTRForums and although most reports referred to a deerstalker, one report in the Daily Telegraph referred to ‘low crowned felt hat’.)

I also pointed out the date of the Emma Smith attack being given wrongly as 4th April when it was actually the 3rd.

I received responses to what I had written and shortly thereafter ended my comments. The comments were just points I had noticed when watching the programme and were given as an amateur critique which would (and in fact did) carry little weight or impression. They were not abusive and not an attack on any individual. In view of the comments I withdrew fully from both boards and have not commented on the second part of this documentary in any way.

A certain poster on the JTRForums commented ‘I also challenge anyone who wants a dig to – at the very least – grow themselves a pair and dig using their real name. There really is no point in taking anyone’s digs seriously if they won’t say who they are. They may as well be posting as Mickey Mouse.’

Well, quite, that’s the reason I was using the pseudonym, the comments would carry less significance and could be more easily dismissed, as I have explained. The following comment was also posted, ‘They could have fooled me about ‘not’ trying to spoil anything, but let’s make sure they don’t succeed eh?’

I am sure that even had I posted under my own name it would not have ‘spoilt’ anything, and that was not the intention. I was an enthusiast commenting on a documentary I had just watched, my remarks were addressed by others and I posted no further. However, I decided to follow my own sage advice and to leave the boards. I do not consider pointing out valid errors or reasonable opinion as either ‘petty’ or ‘gratuitous’. However, there are those who will stand for no criticism or adverse comment whatsoever about this recent documentary. You must only sing its praises at the same time realising they themselves are at liberty to criticise any previous works on the Ripper.

As for ‘hiding’ behind a pseudonym, it was hardly that as several know that I post as Gideon Fell and I even told one person in the chatroom that it was my pseudonym. Of course the administrators of these boards know that it is me also. I have never used the pseudonym for abuse or unjustified commentary.

I have deliberately refrained from any comment on the current discussion about the marginalia and I won’t be doing so.

Now we have this current post, and make what you will of that. Personally I don’t give a rat’s rear end either way as I won’t be back. And that, I suspect, is what certain posters would prefer.

[caz]

I have never used the pseudonym for abuse or unjustified commentary.

Interesting use of 'the'.

I have never used any pseudonym for any purpose under the sun.

Hi All,

I had to smile. I just watched Horizon: Science Under Attack on BBC2, which featured right at the end a couple of academics chuckling over Darwin’s donation of his Origin of the Species to the Royal Society, with the simple handwritten inscription inside: ‘from the author’. The chuckling was the result of a throwaway, inconsequential remark that the inscription (as we viewers could see for ourselves) was “rather overwhelmed by 80s biro”.

’Tis a very British thing. Go figure.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ally,

Who d'ya think are the ones least likely to benefit from one person's thoughtless, but innocent addition of those red felt tip lines, which serve to highlight the significant passages in that damned book?

And who d'ya think will be the ones gloating about their God given opportunity to make a meal of it?

So when does all this outrage become faked outrage and ill-disguised enjoyment?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Ally,

Who d'ya think are the ones least likely to benefit from one person's thoughtless, but innocent addition of those red felt tip lines, which serve to highlight the significant passages in that damned book?

And who d'ya think will be the ones gloating about their God given opportunity to make a meal of it?

So when does all this outrage become faked outrage and ill-disguised enjoyment?

Love,

Caz
X

No one will know the truth until its forensically examined in more detail than the last two occassions and subjected to a forensic test which was not carried out on it previous.

[caz]

And you'd know the truth, Trev, if it bit you on the bottom?

I suspect that the Swansons don't give a flying whatsit what you suspect and what you demand. I wouldn't if the book was mine.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Ally,

Who d'ya think are the ones least likely to benefit from one person's thoughtless, but innocent addition of those red felt tip lines, which serve to highlight the significant passages in that damned book?

And who d'ya think will be the ones gloating about their God given opportunity to make a meal of it?

So when does all this outrage become faked outrage and ill-disguised enjoyment?

Love,

Caz

I don't particularly care who is most likely to be harmed by it and I don't particularly care who is gloating. Neither is relevant to the truth. Neither is relevant to the facts. If we only discuss or explore the truth when the people we like will benefit and the people we dislike will be harmed, that doesn't say much about us as a people.

And in this case, I am not sure what exact "harm" will come to anyone by exploring the possibilities here. If exposing the truth will cause an innocent person to die, then okay, let's not dig at that truth. But that is hardly the case here.

Say it is somehow proven that "Kosminsky was the suspect" was absolutely faked. Who is harmed? What terrible thing happens? Is everyone who believes in Kosminsky required to sacrifice their first born? Cut off their hand for writing about him or gouge out their eye for their blind acceptance? What happens to Mr. Swanson...oops, sorry dude, someone marked up your book. That sucks, and it's not worth as much as you thought. Happens every day on antiques road show. We are not talking life and death consequences here.

I am not particularly outraged and don't believe I've used the word. I am surprised, mostly at the attempts of everyone to minimize this and a general air of "shh, keep it quiet".

It is that kind of collective muzzling which makes the conspiracy nuts foam and there's nothing more annoying than a conspiracy nut in full froth.

[Trevor Marriott]

And you'd know the truth, Trev, if it bit you on the bottom?

I suspect that the Swansons don't give a flying whatsit what you suspect and what you demand. I wouldn't if the book was mine.

Love,

Caz
X

As to knowing the truth I would see it long before it got anywhere near me.

I remember a quote from Jack Nicholson in A few good men "The truth, you cant handle the truth" never a a more truer saying which applies to some Ripperologists.

I am not casting dispertions nor am I demanding I am merely stating the obvious solution to all dispertions being cast by others.

As to my suspicions I now keep them close to my chest and tell no one. I have taken a leaf out of the books of others disclose no more than you need to. Then when you need to make up an excuse as to why you cant.

I would also disagree with you If I were Nevel Swanson and were aware of what is being suggested. I would willingy agree to the tests being conducted unless of course I had something to hide and knew that the tests may reveal something sinister which would put me in an untennable position.

[caz]

How do you think anyone here has been attempting to 'keep this quiet', Ally?

Collective muzzling? Are you nuts??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack/

Around 58 minutes for those who can access this.

I tell you, these academic dudes know what's really important. And it's not a nasty modern felt tip pen...

Love,

Caz
X