There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Who's saying that the 1981 News of the World incident was an invention?

On Casebook, 6th February 2006, Charles Nevin, late of the Daily Telegraph, explained about the News of the World, writing that "the Swanson memo was a bit opaque for a punchy tabloid read, and 'Ripper Revealed: Unknown Pole Did It' would not have seemed a particularly surefire winner, circulation-wise."

Unknown Pole? What, no name in 1981?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

On Casebook, 6th February 2006, Charles Nevin, late of the Daily Telegraph, explained about the News of the World, writing that "the Swanson memo was a bit opaque for a punchy tabloid read, and 'Ripper Revealed: Unknown Pole Did It' would not have seemed a particularly surefire winner, circulation-wise."

Unknown Pole? What, no name in 1981?

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of this. You seem to be suggesting Charles Nevin believes that someone added the name 'Kosminski' after 1981. Obviously he doesn't believe that.

[jason_c]

If that be correct then why did they not print such hot property ?

If Swanson had named Prince Eddy as the ripper then the story would be worth a few thousands. Conjecture about a local Jew wouldnt have been worth nearly as much. No exclusive pictures of said Jew looking suitably menacing either.

News of the World exclusive -

"Rabbi" Ripper Revealed: Shocking secrets of solo sex!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I wasn't suggesting anything of the kind. That's purely your rather tortuous surmise.

However, I do believe that someone added the name 'Kosminski' after 1981.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

I wasn't suggesting anything of the kind. That's purely your rather tortuous surmise.

If you quote what someone says, and then ask "What, no name in 1981?" then it's hardly a "tortuous surmise" to interpret that as a suggestion that the words you quoted imply "no name in 1981."

Obviously, Charles Nevin meant no more than that 'Kosminski' would have been an "Unknown Pole" to readers of the News of the World in 1981.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you quote what someone says, and then ask "What, no name in 1981?" then it's hardly a "tortuous surmise" to interpret that as a suggestion that the words you quoted imply "no name in 1981."

Obviously, Charles Nevin meant no more than that 'Kosminski' would have been an "Unknown Pole" to readers of the News of the World in 1981.

The other factor is that if the News of the world had no intention of printing it they wouldnt have paid swanson for the sole rights, which is what i am led to beleive. Now if they had paid him then surely Swanson name would be in their records. Enquiries with the NOW to date had not revealed any such transaction.

But surely every new suspect is at some time a no name it is a matter for researchers and sometimes the press to try to prove or disprove that named person is a viable suspect through further investigations.

In 1981 if the Marginalia did contain the name of Kosminski surelythat would have added more
weight in corroborating the Mcnaghten memo so i would suggest a valuable piece of information at that time well worthy of printing.

I beleive like Simon and others that the marginalia was added to after 1981. Thats why it is important for whatever tests available are used to prove or disprove that view.

[Chris]

The other factor is that if the News of the world had no intention of printing it they wouldnt have paid swanson for the sole rights, which is what i am led to beleive. Now if they had paid him then surely Swanson name would be in their records. Enquiries with the NOW to date had not revealed any such transaction.

But are you sure that the database you referred to previously is complete as far back as 1981? And what about the note from the News of the World that Jim Swanson showed to Charles Nevin in 1987? Why doesn't that show up in their records?

[Trevor Marriott]

But are you sure that the database you referred to previously is complete as far back as 1981? And what about the note from the News of the World that Jim Swanson showed to Charles Nevin in 1987? Why doesn't that show up in their records?

I repeat there is no record of Jim Swanson by name or anything relating to the marginalia in the records.

There may well have been some correspondence between Swanson and The NOW in 1981 regarding the marginalia but of course what we dont know and what Charles Nevin wouldnt have known is what the Marginalia actulally contained or as we suggest didnt contain in 1981.

[Chris]

There may well have been some correspondence between Swanson and The NOW in 1981 regarding the marginalia ...

I understood you previously to imply that the lack of any record of such correspondence was significant. It appears that's not the case.

[Errata]

The other factor is that if the News of the world had no intention of printing it they wouldnt have paid swanson for the sole rights, which is what i am led to beleive. Now if they had paid him then surely Swanson name would be in their records. Enquiries with the NOW to date had not revealed any such transaction.

I know almost nothing about the reputation of the News of the World, but since paying for stories is not usually a sign of journalistic excellence, I'm guessing it's something closer to a magazine or a tabloid?

My sister (an Editor) told me that reputable newspapers do occasionally buy exclusivity to a story, but the transaction is typically through the individual reporter, not the newspaper (unless it's an interview or some such). Mostly because the individual reporter is responsible for the fact-checking and confirmation. So the record of such a transaction may not be in the newspaper's accounts per se, but would show up as a sort of unusual expense account for the reporter. To find the name of the source one would then have to dig up that expense account.

I suppose it's possible a reporter gave the man money for the story, and then realized he couldn't confirm the suspect. He may have assumed that similar references would be elsewhere, or that he would be able to trace Kosminski through the various institutions the marginalia described. When he couldn't, he may have concluded that it was a fake, or that he couldn't write the story with any of the usual journalistic checks. If the paper is in the habit of paying for stories, I imagine that would happen not infrequently.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sacred Cow of Ripperology

I think it pertinent to note that when the 'Swanson marginalia' entered the public arena it should have been properly examined and validated at that time. But it wasn't.

Ripperologically speaking it was , and still is, a very important discovery and yet it was accepted without proper scrutiny. At that time Jim Swanson was there, firing on all faculties, and able to supply full detail of his earlier approach to the News of the World and anything else of a relevant nature. However, it was accepted into Ripperworld without proper examination and not questioned for many years.

When I first examined it 'in the flesh' some twelve years later I was very surprised to see the variations in the handwriting and pencil used - which were visible to the naked eye but had not been previously noted. I have detailed this before and I don't intend to do so again now. By then it was already a sort of 'sacred cow' of Ripperology.

Now I think that it is right and proper that every effort should be made to resolve whatever questions might remain - if that is possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think it pertinent to note that when the 'Swanson marginalia' entered the public arena it should have been properly examined and validated at that time. But it wasn't.

Ripperologically speaking it was , and still is, a very important discovery and yet it was accepted without proper scrutiny. At that time Jim Swanson was there, firing on all faculties, and able to supply full detail of his earlier approach to the News of the World and anything else of a relevant nature. However, it was accepted into Ripperworld without proper examination and not questioned for many years.

When I first examined it 'in the flesh' some twelve years later I was very surprised to see the variations in the handwriting and pencil used - which were visible to the naked eye but had not been previously noted. I have detailed this before and I don't intend to do so again now. By then it was already a sort of 'sacred cow' of Ripperology.

Now I think that it is right and proper that every effort should be made to resolve whatever questions might remain - if that is possible.

Stewart
Thank you and others for your continued support

[Chris]

Now I think that it is right and proper that every effort should be made to resolve whatever questions might remain - if that is possible.

That's fair enough.

But I don't think it's fair for people to be saying publicly - as some others are - that they believe someone added to the annotations after 1981. I don't believe there's any evidence at all that that happened.

[Trevor Marriott]

I understood you previously to imply that the lack of any record of such correspondence was significant. It appears that's not the case.

I am merely commenting on your statement regarding the e mail.The lack of correspondence and the fact that nothing was ever printed is very significant.

The latter may indicate the fact that there was nothing signifiicant at that time in the marginala to print and therefore of no interest to the public. (nothing significant as in the name Kosminski)

I take it you subscribe to Kosminski being the ripper then ? If that is the case it would explain why you are against new tests and further investigative work done on the marginalia.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's fair enough.

But I don't think it's fair for people to be saying publicly - as some others are - that they believe someone added to the annotations after 1981. I don't believe there's any evidence at all that that happened.

But you dont know that thats what we are trying to prove or disprove.