There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Errata]

If you are going to debate anything, the trick is to just debate for the sake of debating, to throw ideas out there and let other people throw their ideas back and maybe you learn something new and maybe they learn something new as well.

All true. But kinda not what I meant. If someone comes up to me and says "Hey I was looking in my parent's attic and I found a Hitler Youth dagger from World War II, and everyone told me to stay out of the attic, and no one takes me seriously when i want to do family history etc." my first thought is "Why are you telling me this?" And i don't mean it isn't worth relating, or that I don't want to hear it, but typically people say something like that because they have some sort of conclusion. A thesis statement. So is this person trying to tell me that they found a neat thing, or are they trying to tell me that their grandfather was a Nazi? Or are they trying to tell me that their family is paranoid, rightfully or not? Or are they complaining of not being taken seriously? And maybe it's all three. But then I don't know what piece of information I am supposed to respond to.

And here on the boards, threads generally either start with a question and end with an answer, or start with a thesis and end after a great deal of deconstruction. And I could speak to how a forgery would or would not impact Kosminsky as a suspect, but I can contribute nothing to document authentication techniques, I know little about academia except on a 3rd hand basis, and a Ripperologist Cartel is new to me. So while my response is clearly not necessary, If i were to say something (or ask a question) I would like to know what I am supposed to be responding to, and what if anything is a tangent.

Like this post I suppose.

[Ally]

Ally

I'm not quite sure how serious you are about that scenario, but it seems to me that if the hypothetical forger was seriously concerned that some new evidence might emerge proving that the police suspect "Kosminski" was not Aaron Kozminski, then both spellings would involve significant risks.

If it were a forgery period, it involves significant risks. Wouldn't the point be to minimize them as much as possible?

I did say at the start that I didn't think the argument about spelling proved anything ...

Yep, agreed.

[Ally]

my first thought is "Why are you telling me this?" And i don't mean it isn't worth relating, or that I don't want to hear it, but typically people say something like that because they have some sort of conclusion. A thesis statement. So is this person trying to tell me that they found a neat thing, or are they trying to tell me that their grandfather was a Nazi? Or are they trying to tell me that their family is paranoid, rightfully or not? Or are they complaining of not being taken seriously? And maybe it's all three. But then I don't know what piece of information I am supposed to respond to.

But isn't that precisely the point of asking questions? And not just any question, but targeted questions. So while I wouldn't ask "why are you telling me this", you could ask "well why do you think they don't want you to research this?" "what do you think you might find that would prevent them from supporting you" "Do you think this find is significant to your personal history or just an oddity". You don't know precisely what their premise is, which is why you ask questions. And maybe they don't even HAVE a thesis, maybe they also just have a great big swirling mass of questions and need a sounding board to throw those questions and ideas at.

So while my response is clearly not necessary, If i were to say something (or ask a question) I would like to know what I am supposed to be responding to, and what if anything is a tangent.

Like this post I suppose.

There is no specific answer to that. I don't think questions are ever out of place as long as they are relevant to the topic (don't ask about Kosminski on the Tumblety thread obviously ...you know what I mean), but I am even more disturbed by the implications of what you've said than the specifics.

Instilling fear of asking questions is the first step towards intimidation. I am not saying there's no such thing as a stupid question, because obviously there are. But the fact that you are even pondering asking questions means you probably aren't the type to make one. So if you have a question, ask it. If you have a statement to make, make it.

No response is ever necessary, really. Not this one I am writing now, or the one I wrote before. I mean, pretty much ALL abstract or theoretical conversations are unnecessary so why shouldn't you chatter just as needlessly as the rest of us? I mean look at Chris there, he's got over 2000 posts to his name...chatters like a magpie that one.

[Chris]

If it were a forgery period, it involves significant risks. Wouldn't the point be to minimize them as much as possible?

Yes, of course. That was the whole basis of my argument. And I still think that if I were a hypothetical forger in 1987 forced to choose which spelling to use, I would plump for 'z' because of the risk that Macnaghten had got the spelling wrong, rather than 's' because of the risk that some new evidence was going to materialise proving that Aaron Kozminski couldn't have been Macnaghten's suspect.

But entertaining though this argument has been, I still think these risks pale into insignificance compared with the risk anyone would run by doctoring a document and arranging for it to be published by a national newspaper, when it had already been shown in its original form to a journalist from another national newspaper.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

As we are talking hypothetically, how about this...

A document in 1981 is handed to a known sensationalistic newspaper, without the name of any suspect. Reason given by the newspaper is that without a named suspect, it isnt a story deemed worthy of running. It simply won't sell more newspapers. The pencilled additions to the document are clearly seen and can be easily read.

Holder of document realises that this will probably be the case if he tries to sell the story to another newspaper. The matter rests there...for 6 years.

Then the scenario of hypothetical collusion arrives, in order to help promote a hypothetical product that does give a named suspect. More info added, complete with suspect's name added in last line. In pencil. Timing is good on another front, because of all interest in this crime because of an anniversary of that crime that will occur in the space of a few months. Many things will flood the market on the subject, some genuine, some in order to cash in on the mania surrounding the event.

2nd newspaper is therefore contacted, who DO print the story, with addition of named suspect etc. They DO think it is now a worthy news item, and promote it with great gusto.

Reason given to cover original non-printing in first newspaper is change of editor/owner etc etc.

Promotion of said hypothetical product helped immensely by document.
No organ of any kind scrutinises the document when the document first comes into the public arena.

Many years later, a specialist in this type of crime memorabilia, and specifically this crime, takes a look at the document in person of the said owner, photographs it and notices two different types of pencil used in the annotations on the document. He also notes grammatical changes of style.

After a long while, years infact after the discovery of the document, said hypothetical document is then handed to a private organ for establishing authenticity.
Private organ shows both for and against arguments, wanting to see more examples of other written articles by same hand.

Said document is then loaned to private museum, which promotes suspect as being true identity of killer, when displaying document.

This museum itself needs a public re-launch after a make over. The press are contacted, and they cover the story of original owner placing the document in the museum whereupon they again claim that the killer had been identified by owner's deceased relative in the writings on the printed document - they apparently were totally unaware that this news was old hat.

Here I ask you to look again at posting 229.

I again ask you to remember the words used in those articles on post 229..

"...This marked the re-launch of the museum which features exhibits from famous cases dating back to 1875. " (my emphasis) This is excellent promotion.

and again, the next one, which I will adjust for the sake of the hypothetical idea here..

"....He (suspects name) became a suspect when he was allegedly spotted at the scene of the murder of (victim), believed to be the (killer's public nickname's) third victim.

Err, when did (suspect) become a named suspect again?

But all is not over for this intrepid document. Oh no. Around two years ago the document was noted to have yet more additions on it's pages. This time in red felt tipped pen. This addition is not generally publically noticed until the launch of another product, 2 years later, in which the document is shown to the public via the television media. Upon this showing, yet more additions in pencil are noted, as well as the red felt tipped pen additions, and the latest pencilled ones apparently re-enforce the underlining of the original pencilled notes.

This thread deals with something being wrong with a document or not.

Hypothetical or not, that is one load of very strange occurrances. Singularly perhaps, innocent. Collectively? Perhaps not. It would certainly bring the authenticity of the document into question. It would certainly arouse suspicion too.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

One doesn't have to be an all-out conspiracy theorist to see that something here is very possibly amiss. At the very least, intruiging. At most?.....

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello all,

As we are talking hypothetically, how about this...

A document in 1981 is handed to a known sensationalistic newspaper, without the name of any suspect. Reason given by the newspaper is that without a named suspect, it isnt a story deemed worthy of running. It simply won't sell more newspapers. The pencilled additions to the document are clearly seen and can be easily read.

Holder of document realises that this will probably be the case if he tries to sell the story to another newspaper. The matter rests there...for 6 years.

Then the scenario of hypothetical collusion arrives, in order to help promote a hypothetical product that does give a named suspect. More info added, complete with suspect's name added in last line. In pencil. Timing is good on another front, because of all interest in this crime because of an anniversary of that crime that will occur in the space of a few months. Many things will flood the market on the subject, some genuine, some in order to cash in on the mania surrounding the event.

2nd newspaper is therefore contacted, who DO print the story, with addition of named suspect etc. They DO think it is now a worthy news item, and promote it with great gusto.

Reason given to cover original non-printing in first newspaper is change of editor/owner etc etc.

Promotion of said hypothetical product helped immensely by document.
No organ of any kind scrutinises the document when the document first comes into the public arena.

Many years later, a specialist in this type of crime memorabilia, and specifically this crime, takes a look at the document in person of the said owner, photographs it and notices two different types of pencil used in the annotations on the document. He also notes grammatical changes of style.

After a long while, years infact after the discovery of the document, said hypothetical document is then handed to a private organ for establishing authenticity.
Private organ shows both for and against arguments, wanting to see more examples of other written articles by same hand.

Said document is then loaned to private museum, which promotes suspect as being true identity of killer, when displaying document.

This museum itself needs a public re-launch after a make over. The press are contacted, and they cover the story of original owner placing the document in the museum whereupon they again claim that the killer had been identified by owner's deceased relative in the writings on the printed document - they apparently were totally unaware that this news was old hat.

Here I ask you to look again at posting 229.

I again ask you to remember the words used in those articles on post 229..

"...This marked the re-launch of the museum which features exhibits from famous cases dating back to 1875. " (my emphasis) This is excellent promotion.

and again, the next one, which I will adjust for the sake of the hypothetical idea here..

"....He (suspects name) became a suspect when he was allegedly spotted at the scene of the murder of (victim), believed to be the (killer's public nickname's) third victim.

Err, when did (suspect) become a named suspect again?

But all is not over for this intrepid document. Oh no. Around two years ago the document was noted to have yet more additions on it's pages. This time in red felt tipped pen. This addition is not generally publically noticed until the launch of another product, 2 years later, in which the document is shown to the public via the television media. Upon this showing, yet more additions in pencil are noted, as well as the red felt tipped pen additions, and the latest pencilled ones apparently re-enforce the underlining of the original pencilled notes.

This thread deals with something being wrong with a document or not.

Hypothetical or not, that is one load of very strange occurrances. Singularly perhaps, innocent. Collectively? Perhaps not. It would certainly bring the authenticity of the document into question. It would certainly arouse suspicion too.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

One doesn't have to be an all-out conspiracy theorist to see that something here is very possibly amiss. At the very least, intruiging. At most?.....

best wishes

Phil

Excellent post Phil couldnt agree more with you

[Chris]

Phil

Faced with that mountain of completely unevidenced speculation, I think any further attempt at rational discussion would be futile.

I see Martin Fido himself has now been dragged into the "hypothetical" conspiracy. Could this get any more ridiculous?

[Ally]

Of course it could get more ridiculous. It can hypothetically degenerate into a hypothetical farce, when hypothetical people who aren't acquainted with actual facts decide to let their hypothetical fancies run amok.

Upon first and second reading, I could not decide if he was really referring to Martin in this ....

Then the scenario of hypothetical collusion arrives, in order to help promote a hypothetical product that does give a named suspect. ....

Promotion of said hypothetical product helped immensely by document.

...hypothetically of course, but if he is indeed, it shows he is more concerned with hypothetical conspiracies and ignores pesky facts that interfere with hypothetical collusion theories.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I mentioned no name. Any collusion could be from or with A.N.Other. for all I know. You assume but I mentioned no one. Infact, the gentleman you mentioned never actually came into my head.
I didn't even mention a book written by the gentleman, please note.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

Oh, please!

A "product" naming Kozminski as the Ripper, that appeared in 1987? There was only one! What else could you have been referring to?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I only used the newspaper clippings as an example. That is why i highlighted the examples of use of a document for another cause. PROMOTION of a re-opening.
But I DO mean what I said, I didnt think of the man you mentioned. It was hypothetical. As for a mountain of speculation, have a look back on this thread, some was provided by SPE, amongst others, and what happened is fact.
Sure, in the hypothetical scenario, there is speculation. But whilst people are talking of a hypothetical forgery by someone, which is not known to have actually happened (I didn't use that word), then speculation has already well and truly entered the arena...long before I speculated, hypothetically.

best wishes

Phil

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Phil

Well, if you didn't mean Martin Fido's book, then your "hypothesis" is demonstrable nonsense, because no other such "product" existed.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

You are entitled to your opinion, as is your right.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

The problem with all this hypothetical scenario stuff is that it is rather recklessly spreading the myth that the marginalia is a fraud. A newbie coming onto this thread woul'd undoubtedly believe that there must be some serious questions or concerns over the document's authenticity. In reality, there is absolutely nothing to support the contention that the document is a fraud. Nothing. Zero. The document is almost certainly 100% authentic. Yet, as Phil said in an earlier post , the document has "a reputation of being questionable." Well, the only reason it has a reputation for being questionable is that people on these boards keep repeating these unfounded speculations and hypotheticals over and over again. This honestly reminds me of the birther "debate" in the US. Repeat something enough and people will start believing it is true... or even that it may be true. Then you have people demanding that the document be reexamined by a forensic scientist. It is absurd really. In my opinion it is fairly irresponsible to spread such insinuations with absolutely no facts to them back up.

My answer to this thread is, "No, there is nothing wrong with the marginalia." I think after over 700 posts, this should be clear. But it is not, apparently.

[Ally]

The fact that there is nothing to question is 100 % your opinion.

It is in no way comparable to the Obama birther debate. For starters, Obama has a certificate of birth from Hawaii, there was an announcement made in the Hawaiiain papers at the time, and regardless, even if Obama was born in Kenya or Timbuktu, his mother was a US citizen at the time, so he automatically is a natural born US citizen regardless of where he was born.

In short, there is law, precedent and independent corroboration of Obama's origin.

There is no such independent corroboration of the Swanson marginalia. There is, in fact, no corroboration at all. Which does not mean it is not genuine, but you cannot say with 100 percent certainty that it is genuine. You put in a nice caveat yourself: "almost certainly 100 percent authentic". Which means, it is not 100 percent certain.

And of course, you can't even claim it is almost certainly 100 % authentic any more. You might have once been able to claim that, but anyone can see the document is no longer in its "100 percent authentic" state if it ever was.