There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Phil Carter]

Idiom

Hello Trevor,

I do indeed wish you well in your efforts to resolve this issue once and for all.

As a small diversion, it is interesting to note that the idiom sacred cow appears to have started in America, incredibly, in the late 19th century. Combine this with connections to India and the history of some individuals wrapped up in the history of the mystery, sacred cow was indeed a well chosen turn of phrase in every sense, Stewart!

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Trevor

What I said was that I don't think it's fair for people to be saying publicly that they believe someone added to the annotations after 1981. I don't believe there's any evidence at all that that happened.

"What you are trying to prove or disprove" is neither here nor there. The point is that it's not fair to make accusations without having the evidence to back them up, particularly if the people they point to are no longer here to defend themselves.

As for the lack of any record of correspondence with the News of the World, I don't understand why you raised it in the first place. You say "There may well have been some correspondence between Swanson and The NOW in 1981 regarding the marginalia". That being the case - and given the fact that Charles Nevin was shown correspondence with the News of the World in 1987, so we know there was correspondence - what can we learn from the fact that the newspaper can find no record of it now, apart from something about the way they organise their archives?

[The Good Michael]

Hi All,

It's interesting to note that whilst the Swanson marginalia and end-paper notations are being displayed with white-gloved reverence in New Scotland Yard's Crime Museum there remains an official reluctance to make public the report upon which their provenance is based.

Simon,

I can go into details, but I won't, of one factual error and one error of identification of a person with a supposed portrait of him, at a British museum. In my presence, the manager and clerk investigated, found out I was correct and thanked me for being the first person to point these things out. They then phoned contacts in London for permission to change the details of the artifacts. Museums want accuracy. No mumbo-jumbo and conspiracy to hide information is going on, I'm afraid.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

I Agree

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.

I agree that there is no evidence that 'someone added to the annotations after 1981.' However, it is in the nature of such contested and contentious documents that they be subjected to proper questioning and examination - thus obviating such unfounded suggestions.

As far as the News of the World aspect is concerned, and I am sure that Jim Swanson did approach them with the material, the relevant points to ascertain are the date upon which Jim Swanson attempted to sell them the story and the exact content, if known, of the annotations at that time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sacred

...

As a small diversion, it is interesting to note that the idiom sacred cow appears to have started in America, incredibly, in the late 19th century. Combine this with connections to India and the history of some individuals wrapped up in the history of the mystery, sacred cow was indeed a well chosen turn of phrase in every sense, Stewart!
...
Phil

The cow is esteemed holy (sacred) by the Hindoos which is, presumably, where it originated. It's amusing to note that a fellow author once referred to me as a 'sacred cow of Ripperology' - heaven forbid.

[Suzi]

The cow is esteemed holy (sacred) by the Hindoos which is, presumably, where it originated. It's amusing to note that a fellow author once referred to me as a 'sacred cow of Ripperology' - heaven forbid.

Just PM'd you Stewart

[Chris]

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.

And just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not "subscribe to Kosminski being the ripper" and I am not "against new tests and further investigative work done on the marginalia."

[Trevor Marriott]

And just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not "subscribe to Kosminski being the ripper" and I am not "against new tests and further investigative work done on the marginalia."

Well your posts are not very supportive of the new investigative work.

[Chris]

Well your posts are not very supportive of the new investigative work.

I have nothing against the idea of further testing of the annotations, and I've said nothing against it.

But to be perfectly frank, the way you're going about it, I think you have virtually no chance of getting permission for any further testing. As I've already pointed out, you would need the family's permission before anything could be done. Saying publicly that you think some of the annotations were faked after 1981 is hardly calculated to enlist their sympathy - to say the least!

[Trevor Marriott]

I have nothing against the idea of further testing of the annotations, and I've said nothing against it.

But to be perfectly frank, the way you're going about it, I think you have virtually no chance of getting permission for any further testing. As I've already pointed out, you would need the family's permission before anything could be done. Saying publicly that you think some of the annotations were faked after 1981 is hardly calculated to enlist their sympathy - to say the least!

I am not the only one who suggests this by the way.

In any event whether it is said in public or via a direct approach to the family that suggestion has to be put. If the family say no then fine we can all sit and wonder. I would hope that the Met Police would become involved in that decsion making having to regard to the fact that they now have it on display in a museum as a book of historical significance.

If the decsion is not to have it further examined or tested there will still be a doubt, those who seek to use the marginalia as hard evidence will to take a step as it not conclusive either way.

[Chris]

I am not the only one who suggests this by the way.

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty remarkable suggestion, when you think about it.

Unless it's going to be suggested that the annotations were doctored without Jim Swanson's knowledge and that he didn't notice any difference, then he would obviously have been aware in 1987 that some of the annotations were fake. Obviously, he also knew that the journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations in their original form.

It's suggested that, knowing all that, he arranged for the annotations to be published in a national newspaper, where the News of the World journalist would be able to see them and detect the fake. And as if that wasn't enough, that he actually wrote to the News of the World to tell them that he was arranging for the annotations to be published - as if to make sure they didn't miss it!

To my mind that's a wildly implausible story, even judged by the prevailing standards of Ripperology ...

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty remarkable suggestion, when you think about it.

Unless it's going to be suggested that the annotations were doctored without Jim Swanson's knowledge and that he didn't notice any difference, then he would obviously have been aware in 1987 that some of the annotations were fake. Obviously, he also knew that the journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations in their original form.

It's suggested that, knowing all that, he arranged for the annotations to be published in a national newspaper, where the News of the World journalist would be able to see them and detect the fake. And as if that wasn't enough, that he actually wrote to the News of the World to tell them that he was arranging for the annotations to be published - as if to make sure they didn't miss it!

To my mind that's a wildly implausible story, even judged by the prevailing standards of Ripperology ...

Chris
Throughout these posts you have been totally negative.

At this time we do not know whether or not some or all of the annotations are fake but there is certainly a serious doubt that some or all could be. For a start two handwriting experts have been unable to prove their autheticity.

If some or all are fake then we may never know who was responsible but the list of likely suspects you could write on the back of a cigarrette packet, along with the motives.

We do not know if any journalist from the news of the world ever saw them and if he did how would he have known they were fake ?. In any event the annotations may not have been in the same form as they are now.

My own personal suspicion is that entries relating to the name Kosminski are suspect, and could have been added after 1981. If any future handwring examination is conducted that should be focused on those entries alone.

On a final point can anyone tell me if the telegraph paid for the rights to publish the annotations and if so how much was paid ?

[Chris]

Throughout these posts you have been totally negative.

No. I've simply been putting forward views that are different from yours. But evidently it would be a waste of time to pursue the discussion further.

[Stewart P Evans]

Irrelevant

Just PM'd you Stewart

A totally irrelevant digression but as I am told that 'the Hindu people sady never went by the name of Hindoos!' I thought that I should quote my sources.

The first reference is from Eadie's Biblical Cyclopaedia, and the second is from The Concise Oxford Dictionary. I try hard not to get things wrong but sadly I'm only human and I often err.

[caz]

Hi All,

I'm not sure which accusation the Swanson family would find more disconcerting: that someone pretending to be their ancestor faked the marginalia, or that this person was so stupid that a) they added the bit about Kosminski being the 'suspect', hoping that nobody who knew, or had seen, what was on that page previously would notice anything different, and b) they didn't go the whole hog and claim that Kosminski was definitely the ripper, adding a sentence or two outlining Swanson's 'proof'.

Using the kind of logic that shall hereafter be referred to by me as 'Trev's logic', I have little doubt that this small oversight will have been rectified by now, so that if and when the book is allowed to be seen by anyone not involved in this 'let's throw the book at Kosminski' conspiracy, the marginalia will miraculously throw the book at him - with knobs on. At the very least, the word 'suspect' will have been erased (with Tippex if the pencil was a stubborn git) and 'ripper' written in its place in a crudely Swanson-like hand with a pencil from Smallworths.

[Is this all getting silly enough for everyone yet?]

Hi Trevor,

There isn't a newspaper in the known universe that would have turned down the "definitive" identification of Jack the Ripper by the police officer who had been in charge of the case.

Regards,

Simon

When a newspaper is offered any such "definitive" identification, would someone kindly wake me up? I'm off for a nap in the hope that the silliness will have subsided by the time I return.

Anderson only thought he knew, and according to this supposedly sensational marginalia, Swanson thought Kosminski was the suspect in question, and appeared to think he would have been convicted if only the Jewish witness had testified. The reference to no more murders taking place is a classic sign of mere personal belief, and one which we find attached to any and every suspect who was off the streets by the required point in time. It's totally unsatisfying as a QED and becomes redundant with any actual evidence. So a faker would have had to provide something pretty strong to make the newspapers go "Wow, this Swanson guy actually knew".

What a silly faker!

Love,

Caz
X