There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[caz]

Morning Stewart,

Many thanks for posting the newspaper reaction to the marginalia, which kind of makes my point for me. To make the marginalia story sensational, they obviously had to sex it up and claim that the ripper had - at last, woo hoo! - been identified. Case closed as they say - way too often.

The fact is, we all know that this is not the case. It was not only old news, but the 'news' itself - as contained in the marginalia - does not 'identify' the ripper and leaves the case wide open, with even more question marks over it than we had before.

I just don't get why a faker would do that, unless it was purely to wind up Ripperologists and get them at each other's throats. Doesn't seem to take much, does it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

First...

Morning Stewart,
Many thanks for posting the newspaper reaction to the marginalia, which kind of makes my point for me. To make the marginalia story sensational, they obviously had to sex it up and claim that the ripper had - at last, woo hoo! - been identified. Case closed as they say - way too often.
The fact is, we all know that this is not the case. It was not only old news, but the 'news' itself - as contained in the marginalia - does not 'identify' the ripper and leaves the case wide open, with even more question marks over it than we had before.
I just don't get why a faker would do that, unless it was purely to wind up Ripperologists and get them at each other's throats. Doesn't seem to take much, does it?
Love,
Caz
X

First let me say that I don't think that the marginalia and annotations are faked and there is no evidence to indicate that they are.

Secondly, the point I have made, and make, is that when the annotations first entered the public domain in 1987/88 they were not properly examined (as witness the fact that the discrepancies in the pencil and writing were not noticed) and had they have been I guess this 'late in the day' debate wouldn't be going on now. The relevance of the discrepancies lies in the fact that the one set of annotations may well have been made some years after the first and at a time when Swanson's mental/physical faculties might have deteriorated.

But I agree with you, the papers did make the most of it (as they would) and exaggerated (in my opinion) the relevance of the notes. This obviously reinforces the query as to why the News of the World, given the first opportunity, didn't make a story out of it. We already know Jim Swanson's motive for trying to get the material published, he wanted to get some recognition for the part his grandfather had played, put an end to all the fanciful conjecture about the identity of the Ripper and that the personnel in Scotland Yard were satisfied they knew who the Ripper was and he had been safely put away.

[Trevor Marriott]

Someone was kind enough to send me a copy, but it turned out they weren't really authorised to do so.

As I mentioned, I have tried my best to get permission to make the report freely available, but I haven't been successful. However, I do feel that the extracts in the new edition of the A-Z (preferably combined with the bit of context I added above) do give a fair reflection of Davies's conclusions.

If I felt there was any significant information being suppressed I would paraphrase it here, but I don't. I realise that's no substitute for people being able to read the report for themselves, but it's the best I can do.

There is a big difference between reading a report and being able to assess and evaluate it correctly.

[robhouse]

There is a big difference between reading a report and being able to assess and evaluate it correctly.

Trevor,

Man, what a condescending and mean-spirited thing to say... but of course, I expect this type of thing from you. I cannot think of a single person whose ability to evaluate documents I value more highly than Chris Phillips. But perhaps I misunderstood the apparent implication of your statement... although I doubt it.

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Man, what a condescending and mean-spirited thing to say... but of course, I expect this type of thing from you. I cannot think of a single person whose ability to evaluate documents I value more highly than Chris Phillips. But perhaps I misunderstood the apparent implication of your statement... although I doubt it.

RH

With the greatest of respect which is what you really dont deserve but I will be condescending. I have seen and had to evaluate more forensic reports than you or Chris have had hot dinners.

That is why i am quite happy to say that Dr Davies report or what we have seen of it is inconclusive. But others seek heavily to rely on it. Perhaps if we get to see the full report a much clearer picture may emerge.

I have been fully aware of Chris`s past involvement with this report for some time now. It a shame it has taken him so long to decide to make it public, again I mention the word transparency. I hope all the others out there who are sitting on copies of this report come forward and make it public.

Questions need to be asked

Q. What did Chris do with the copy he was sent, did it self destruct after reading it ?

Q Why wont anyone publish the full report it obvious there are copies in existence ?

Q Why a deafening silence from Mr Begg and his merry men on the topic of the report

We still seem to be in the world of secret squirrel regarding this report. If we keep shaking the tree who knows what might fall out. It wont be the squirrel thats for sure.

[Stewart P Evans]

Waste of Time

Another waste of time...

[Trevor Marriott]

Another waste of time...

Stewart
You are right I keep telling Chris and Rob HOuse but they just wont listen

[Chris]

I have been fully aware of Chris`s past involvement with this report for some time now. It a shame it has taken him so long to decide to make it public, again I mention the word transparency. I hope all the others out there who are sitting on copies of this report come forward and make it public.

As I have already explained - and as I explained on this thread more than a year ago - so far from "sitting on" the report, I have been trying to get permission from the copyright holder to make it public. The copyright holder had no objection in principle, but said I should also get the consent of the person who commissioned the report. That has not been forthcoming, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to post copyright material here without getting proper permission. (I hardly think Stephen Ryder would thank me if I did.)

In fact, given the reaction here, I shall think twice before making similar efforts in future.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I have already explained - and as I explained on this thread more than a year ago - so far from "sitting on" the report, I have been trying to get permission from the copyright holder to make it public. The copyright holder had no objection in principle, but said I should also get the consent of the person who commissioned the report. That has not been forthcoming, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to post copyright material here without getting proper permission. (I hardly think Stephen Ryder would thank me if I did.)

In fact, given the reaction here, I shall think twice before making similar efforts in future.

Well why not tell us who the copyright owner is then

[Chris]

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=150530&postcount=131

[Trevor Marriott]

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=131

Thank you that wasnt to difficult was it.

I now await a response from the Met Police regarding my requests to them for further tests to be carried out on the marginlaia and the end paper annotations.

In addittion I have requested they furnish me with a full copy of the forensic report compiled by Dr Davies.

[Chris]

Good luck with that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good luck with that.

"He who dares wins"

[Natalie Severn]

I have seen and had to evaluate more forensic reports than you or Chris have had hot dinners.

Well I shall be most interested in the results Trevor---but there is no need to be offensive about Chris.He has explained why he can"t be "transparent" in this instance which is perfectly understandable and would clearly be a breach of trust were he to be broadcasting what he has been shown in confidence to all and sundry .
Good Luck with your quest!
Norma

[robhouse]

"Thank you that wasnt to difficult was it."

God you are an idiot. That shows he mentioned who the copyright holder was a hundred and twenty posts ago. You would think being such a genius detective you might have been able to figure that out by now.