There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Ally]

Sorry I realize I didn't make my point clear so I wanted to elaborate. In his book, Fido quoted the McN with the McN spelling. So if a forger was going to forge something from a person in McN's time, and if the forger had at all smarts, he would have used the contemporary spelling.

Or Swanson, who we are presuming couldn't remember the name originally, suddenly remembered it, complete with contemporary spelling, and jotted it down or he somehow had access to a document that had the contemporary spelling, like the McM.

I have been on the computer too much in recent days, my brain has turned to scrambled eggs and I don't know if I am making sense. I've edited this twice, and I still don't know if I am clear on what I mean.

[Trevor Marriott]

"If you are not happy with that answer feel free to do you own enquiries."

That's all very well, but you did choose to post this information - which appears to contradict Jim Swanson's account - and said that you considered it "very significant."

If in fact the News of the World doesn't retain this type of correspondence for thirty years, then there is no contradiction and no significance. I think in fairness you should have mentioned the fact that you didn't ascertain whether the archivist would expect the correspondence to have survived.

As you know i am not obliged to disclose anything on here but unike others I try to be as helpful and as informative as possible for the benefit of others.

[Chris]

Sorry I realize I didn't make my point clear so I wanted to elaborate. In his book, Fido quoted the McN with the McN spelling. So if a forger was going to forge something from a person in McN's time, and if the forger had at all smarts, he would have used the contemporary spelling.

But the point is that in Fido's book there are two different contemporary spellings - one (Kosminski) in Macnaghten's memorandum, and another in the biographical sections on Aaron Kozminski.

What I'm saying is that if I were a forger in 1987 with Fido's book in front of me, I would plump for the one in the biographical sections, because if I followed Macnaghten there would be a chance that he simply spelled the name wrong. For all I knew, Macnaghten might have been the only person ever to have spelled Aaron's name that way (that's not the case, of course, but how could a forger know that?).

Actually, the more I think about it, the stronger this argument seems.

[Ally]

I see your point. However, I am currently looking at Fido's book from '87. And in the chapters dealing with Sir Robert Anderson and McN and all relevant, the spelling Kosminski is always used. It is used to describe the general suspect. I cannot find a single reference to Kozminski during the relevant chapters. The only place where Kozminski come in play is in later chapters when Fido starts discussing his own later research into the matter.

So which would be more likely to be used?

[Trevor Marriott]

I see your point. However, I am currently looking at Fido's book from '87. And in the chapters dealing with Sir Robert Anderson and McN and all relevant, the spelling Kosminski is always used. It is used to describe the general suspect. I cannot find a single reference to Kozminski during the relevant chapters. The only place where Kozminski come in play is in later chapters when Fido starts discussing his own later research into the matter.

So which would be more likely to be used?

None of them

[Ally]

P.S. In reading over my last post, my sentences were kind of curt, which is not my intention. I have a pisser of a headache today, and when I get like this, I try to be succinct so as not to confuse myself. So if my sentences seem brief or curt, please note that is not my intention. I am simple-minded today so I am trying to keep it simple.

[Errata]

I have read this thread over and over, and while I find it fascinating, there is something I would like to know.

What conclusion am I to draw from this?

Ok. Obviously, there either is something wrong with the Swanson marginalia or there isn't. And I could go either way on this. Let's say there is. Well, it clearly eliminates the writings as a genuine document from Swanson's own hands. Which of course does not mean that Kosminski didn't do it, merely that a piece of evidence accusing him has been altered. So let's say there isn't anything wrong with it. That doesn't mean Kosminski did do it, merely that Swanson thought he did.

The reluctance of the holders of the document to have it re-examined is either suspicious or it isn't. They either believe they have a genuine document and feel no need to re-prove that, or they have suspicions that it's a fake, and don't want to lose an important and famous work and the prestige that goes along with it.

There is either a Ripperologist Cartel deliberately keeping information to themselves and strewing the paths of other searchers with roadblocks, or there isn't. Either like every other branch of academia there are those who hoard information with a view to publishing, or there is a remarkably free exchange of ideas to further the knowledge of all.

So what does this mean for me, the actual crime-oriented hobbyist? And "nothing" is a totally appropriate answer. Is the argument for or against Kosminski for a suspect? Is it for or against freedom of academia to examine historical documents? Is it evidence? Is it trivia? If everything you (any one of you) says is true, what conclusion does that lead to? Guilt or innocence? Censorship or freedom? Conspiracy or coincidence? Because I find this thread fascinating, I just for some reason have a hard time breaking down what the argument is. Or more appropriately what the goal of the argument is. And I am totally willing for this to be because I am dense, or trying too hard to find some overarching theme. But I really wanna know.

[Chris]

I see your point. However, I am currently looking at Fido's book from '87. And in the chapters dealing with Sir Robert Anderson and McN and all relevant, the spelling Kosminski is always used. It is used to describe the general suspect. I cannot find a single reference to Kozminski during the relevant chapters. The only place where Kozminski come in play is in later chapters when Fido starts discussing his own later research into the matter.

Obviously there aren't any references to "Kozminski" before Aaron Kozminski is introduced five pages before the end of the text, only to Macnaghten's "Kosminski.

As far as I can see, what we have before that is references to "Kosminski" on pp. 147-155 in the chapter on the Macnaghten memorandum, some further references on pp. 172-173, again with Macnaghten specified as the source, and a final reminder that the Ripper "might have been called something like Kosminski (Macnaghten ... " immediately before Aaron Kozminski is introduced.

So which would be more likely to be used?

As I said, if I had been forging the annotations in that situation, I should have used the name Fido gives for the historical Aaron Kozminski, rather than running the risk that Macnaghten simply (and uniquely) spelled the name wrong.

[DrHopper]

Well said Errata

I actually work in academia, within several departments in a number of academic institutions, and am a respected researcher in my own area.
Despite the fierce intellectual competition and massive egos of my fellows, I can honestly say I have never witnessed anything like this hoo-ha.
As a long time follower of Casebook I have seen the in-jokes, the sly subtle digs at each other, and the not so subtle. I have seen references to references to references, comments to and about people who are no longer active here, and I have seen scorn poured on those with low post counts who are deemed to be know-nothings, as well as people who are simply negative for the sake of it.
All of these things serve to alienate the 'outsider', to bolster the 'clique' attitude of an alarming number of posters, and to perpetuate the situation as it stands.
Several times I have thought "what's the point?". It becomes painfully obvious that a lot of this seems to be point scoring, feud settling, and a clash of egos. It is no wonder that 'ripperology' has the reputation it does - full of crackpots and egomaniacs. This kind of behaviour would be unacceptable in any other academic field, so why does it happen here. And more importantly, what do we gain from it? What can we say about the Swanson Marginalia that we couldn't say 10 days ago?
For me, this thread sums up ripperology in a nutshell. I have my own research and ideas going on which is why i'm here on this site, to engage in collective research, to discuss, to debate, to argue, but hopefully, to shed light on a series of brutal murders that occured 100 years ago. This is why I have refrained from posting until now, following the brave step taken by Errata. If the rest of you want to engage in pissing contests to see who becomes king or queen of the forums, in this thread or any other, then so be it. The rest of us will be over here working.

[Monty]

Well said Errata

I actually work in academia, within several departments in a number of academic institutions, and am a respected researcher in my own area.
Despite the fierce intellectual competition and massive egos of my fellows, I can honestly say I have never witnessed anything like this hoo-ha.
As a long time follower of Casebook I have seen the in-jokes, the sly subtle digs at each other, and the not so subtle. I have seen references to references to references, comments to and about people who are no longer active here, and I have seen scorn poured on those with low post counts who are deemed to be know-nothings, as well as people who are simply negative for the sake of it.
All of these things serve to alienate the 'outsider', to bolster the 'clique' attitude of an alarming number of posters, and to perpetuate the situation as it stands.
Several times I have thought "what's the point?". It becomes painfully obvious that a lot of this seems to be point scoring, feud settling, and a clash of egos. It is no wonder that 'ripperology' has the reputation it does - full of crackpots and egomaniacs. This kind of behaviour would be unacceptable in any other academic field, so why does it happen here. And more importantly, what do we gain from it? What can we say about the Swanson Marginalia that we couldn't say 10 days ago?
For me, this thread sums up ripperology in a nutshell. I have my own research and ideas going on which is why i'm here on this site, to engage in collective research, to discuss, to debate, to argue, but hopefully, to shed light on a series of brutal murders that occured 100 years ago. This is why I have refrained from posting until now, following the brave step taken by Errata. If the rest of you want to engage in pissing contests to see who becomes king or queen of the forums, in this thread or any other, then so be it. The rest of us will be over here working.

Can someone explain to me the point of this post and its relationship to the thread concerned?

Especially given the rules of the playground.

It only adds fuel and serves no positive purpose.

Monty

[Monty]

No I don't believe it is If you'd like I could go through every exemption one by one but that would be a waste of time. We can clearly see there's no correspondence with her Majesty, there's no threat to national security, there's no formulation of government policy on the line.

So the sole reason would be about law enforcement and those exemptions all appear to be in place so as not to interfere with an ongoing investigation or prevent the apprehension of a criminal.

So if the Freedom of Information exemptions are invoked, what possible portion of them would be germane?

Honestly speaking Ally I agree, I seen no valid exemption in the sections cited either.

However it boils down to two points for me. One is the public interest test, tother is if the document is indeed public or private.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

I'm glad you mentioned this.

From the personal experience I have of the Met police re. the FOI Act, they have previously argued that there is a difference between what the public is interested in and what is in the public interest....

Obviously however the FOI Act is open to many reasons that can be argued for documents being made available, as you are no doubt aware.

best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

Hi Dr Hopper

As you will have noticed, Ripperology is now a vast subject, and one of the reasons for this is the existence of Casebook. It's been going for around twelve years now. I've been here for eight years, and my head holds only a fraction of the information on this site.

Sure, the marginalia are important, which partly explains all the passion. But there are plenty of threads where all you will see is polite discussion and exchange of information.

One of the reasons these boards were set up was to allow the novice to engage in discussion with the expert, which is a laudable aim. There is no reason for anyone to feel frightened. Some people are brusquer than others, but there you go. Jack the Ripper himself was pretty brusque.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Dr Hopper

As you will have noticed, Ripperology is now a vast subject, and one of the reasons for this is the existence of Casebook. It's been going for around twelve years now. I've been here for eight years, and my head holds only a fraction of the information on this site.

Sure, the marginalia are important, which partly explains all the passion. But there are plenty of threads where all you will see is polite discussion and exchange of information.

One of the reasons these boards were set up was to allow the novice to engage in discussion with the expert, which is a laudable aim. There is no reason for anyone to feel frightened. Some people are brusquer than others, but there you go. Jack the Ripper himself was pretty brusque.

Hello Robert,

Indeed, the very existance of this document, and others, certainly does arouse the passion, I agree.

and...Boo! (with a red felt tippped pen)

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I thought casebook was “founded“ 14 years ago.