There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[jmenges]

P.S I know Jonathon is very busy with pressing family obligations, so I have no idea if a podcast is even possible. It was just an idea.

I'd be happy to interview him at his convenience if it could be arranged.

JM

[Ally]

Of course the choice is not mine as to whether he or anyone else chooses to answer questions. But the continued expressed incredulity when people continue to question a document that has never been thoroughly questioned by anyone with an independent eye to only the facts and not the possible repercussions is more than a touch naive and also unbelievable.

When people care more about their investment than digging out the truth, they cannot with any degree of believable indignation express surprise that people continue to question, and question, and question.

Put it all out there, and there's really nothing more to question. Continue to duck and evade, and it goes on and on. It is not the people who are questioning that are at fault here. Questioning is the natural state of human nature.

And as for who considers my opinion worthy of note...lots apparently. The pissing and moaning in emails seems to confirm that as does everyone continuing to debate it on the boards with me. Smooch.

[Monty]

I understand your frustrations Ally but what makes you think Nevill or anyone considers your opinion as worthy of note?

You can ask all you wish, bottom ine is as yet there has been no response.

Yes, frustrating howver that is what we have.

Jason is absolutely spot on. And no matter how often and loud you, Trevor et al ask, the choice is not yours.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes I knew that. But I am really frankly tired of the idea that if you don't like one person's tone when they ask a question, it is a sufficient and understandable reason to refuse to answer all questions there on out.

It isn't. If anyone, no matter who, will only answer questions as long as it toes the party line of, well of course it's totally genuine, then that is not true investigation.

When the only people being given the privilege of questioning are those with a vested or financial interest in the matter, and therefore, aren't really inclined to delve into anything that might be sticky, all the questions will never be answered, because they never will be asked.

Totally agree with you

[Trevor Marriott]

I think this is an excellent idea, in theory.

However I'm not sure if Mr Swanson would trust anyone if he has been keeping abreast of the posts here.

Monty

Its not just about questioning Swanson. At this point i would imagine he can say no more than he has alreday said.

Actions speak louder than words

[Observer]

Hi again Chris. The revelations of Mr Begg knocks my theory into touch haha. I was going to post the following.


I know I'm stating the bleedin obvious, but, It seems to me that the red lines are drawing one's attention to the fact that certain passages of text on page 147 have been underlined. Again, whoever inserted the lines seem to have underlined the original lines in order to draw one's attention to the original lines. In my opinion the owner of the book (should he want to show someone the additions to the book) would not need to use red lines to highlight the underlined text on page 147, he would merely go to page 147, and point them out.

However, if the book was on display, say in a glass cabinet, then I could understand why the book could possibly have been marked up with the red lines. It is possible that the red lines, and the underlining of the original lines were carried out in order to point out to the casual observer their existence, who otherwise would not have a clue what he was looinkg at. The above is just a theory, I am not accusing anyone.

Regards

Observer

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

I have said what I have to say on this topic and do not propose to partake in it further.

All I will say is that I will diligently and expeditiously strive to get to the truth surrounding the marginalia. I will not be silenced or stopped from doing that
by idle threats of legal action or slander. In fact I would welcome it for it would ensure everythng would then be firmly out in the open in the public domain. The we could see who still wanted to play hide and seek.

In concluding I would refer back to the MM whereby the authors of the A-Z were asked to post the Aberconway version on the web for all to see and benefit from. I would ask them to openly respond as to why he hasnt aceeded to the request of Michael Mclaren the current owner of the original for that to be done.

[Ally]

Yes I knew that. But I am really frankly tired of the idea that if you don't like one person's tone when they ask a question, it is a sufficient and understandable reason to refuse to answer all questions there on out.

It isn't. If anyone, no matter who, will only answer questions as long as it toes the party line of, well of course it's totally genuine, then that is not true investigation.

When the only people being given the privilege of questioning are those with a vested or financial interest in the matter, and therefore, aren't really inclined to delve into anything that might be sticky, all the questions will never be answered, because they never will be asked.

[Monty]

Or even if he isn't keeping abreast, if anyone else were keeping him abreast with their own special slant on it?

However, that is what the neutral party would be for. Or if you are saying that Neville will refuse simply because people have been questioning it, that's more of a slur on him than anyone else has so far provided.

You are presuming that he is so rigid and intolerant in his character that any questions regarding the authenticity are automatically presumed as being bad.

If he was actually keeping abreast, and not being kept abreast through the kinds of machinations that characterize Ripper squabbles, I'd think he'd realize there were genuine people with genuine questions and would welcome the chance to have his say.

Maybe a podcast?

Or maybe he is a member of this site and is fully aware.

Or maybe he is sipping Pimms whilst sitting on his yatch in Monaco not giving a rats ass what anyone thinks.

No, I'm not saying those things Ally, however you knew that.

Monty

[Observer]

Thanks to Chris for his prompt reply in answer to my question.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

All i would say is that on here we tend to exaggerate the importance of these messageboards. If the Swanson family wish to respond to a bunch of internet posters then they will. If they dont then its not necessarily sinister, or beyond belief.

By far the most sensible post in this thread. With the exception of a very very small handfull of posters to this site, we are but a bunch of amateur slueths.

Regards

Observer

[Chris]

Hi Chris. I can't find the post in which Paul Begg commented regarding the red lines. Any chance of you directing me to the comments in question. Thanks in advance.

Paul B wrote:
"My understanding is that the red lines highlighting the marginalia in Swanson's copy of The Lighter Side.. were present when the Crime Museum took charge of the book and a photograph taken at the time proves this beyond question. Mr Swanson, who owns the book, has no knowledge of the lines and they are as much of a surprise to him as to anyone else."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=162290&postcount=457

[Ally]

The comment was purely that although the red lines were there when the book was donated to the crime museum, Neville Swanson did not notice them at the time and has no idea how they got there.

If you go to Member List, PaulB, and "find posts by this user", it should be the last post he made.

[Observer]

Paul Begg has already relayed his comment on the red lines.

Hi Chris. I can't find the post in which Paul Begg commented regarding the red lines. Any chance of you directing me to the comments in question. Thanks in advance.

Regards

Observer

[Ally]

Obviously I am not proposing we go haring off and ask him random questions in rapid fire machine gun bursts. But...the word "question" is unfortunate? How else does one go about eliciting information without questioning? Just give him a mike and let him ramble for an hour on the state of the world and his place in it?

Suppose it were done in a podcast, there would be time for all parties to submit the questions they want answered.

Trevor could submit: If I were to pay for testing, would you be willing to agree to a test that might require a hole being punched in? What about a test that scraped off some part of the purple pencil?

I could submit: It's been claimed that in the 60 odd years your aunt owned the book, she never opened it. How do you know? How do you know no one else opened it?

Etc.

P.S I know Jonathon is very busy with pressing family obligations, so I have no idea if a podcast is even possible. It was just an idea.