There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Tecs]

PS.: Maybe our talk would be more fitting in another thread!

Certainly. As you can see I'm quite new so I'm still getting used to the etiquette of the boards. You suggest where to go next (if you want to) and I'll see you there!

Many thanks.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Don Souden wrote this on another thread pertaining to the Channel 5 documentary..

A major artifact in the field, the Swanson Marginalia, has been tampered with and no one seems to evince much interest. What is even more puzzling is that this defacement has been known for some time and no one has said anything.

Chris Phillips, as meticulous a researcher as I know, says he noticed the red lines two years ago when he viewed the book--but never mentioned it. Paul Begg and company, who were privileged to borrow the actual book for their recent documentary, obviously noticed the vandalism--but said nothing.

Moreover, I am told that in addition to the red felt tip pen markings (?) that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

Why the silence by all those who knew of the tampering and never uttered a word, far less a cry of outrage?

As it is, whatever the merit of arguments that the book had been tampered with years ago, it certainly has been now--with all that implies.

Don.


Chris answered Don as to his knowledge of the marginalia'a red lines, and answered a question from this writer as well. (to my satisfaction, I may add) but this thread is not about any individual.

I have transfered the thought from the previous channel 5 thread, to this thread, that is entitled "There's something wrong with the Marginalia"..for as I and others, Don and Jenny included, have pointed out, there IS something wrong with this historical document. It has, at some time over the past decade or so, since SPE took a set of photographs of it, apparently been tampered with (or defaced, or vandalised, if you prefer).

Well Don, we hardly ever agree, but on this occasion, I certainly DO agree..you are perfectly correct...this must NOT slip away quietly into history. This artifact is of the utmost importance. There is enough controversy surrounding it from before, and the validity of this document has been questioned on various fronts in the past. These recent markings (a term I prefer to use) cause me serious concerns.

As regard as tis artifact was tampered with, then we are left with the following possibilities.

1. It was done before transfer from the Swanson family home to the Black museum.
2. It was done whilst under the custody of the Black Museum, under the control of Scotland Yard.
3. It has been borrowed by an individual, leant out by the Black Museum, and returned in the state we see it today without it (the additional markings) being noticed.

As regards to the actual state of the document itself, I am left, sadly, with the conclusion that the document itself is now highly questionable. As Don says, "with all that it implies" encompasses a wide range of problems, and it's authenticity again must be included in that emcompassment.

This document turned up at the time of the 100th anniversary just around the corner. Quite a find and quite a co-incidence. The additional writing at the back of the book causes consternation from some, and has been grammatically questioned. The fact that THIS set of writing was later noticed to be in a different pencil then the first set of writing by SPE, caused questions to be raised over whether the pencilled writing was added a short period after the first, or at a later date. All sorts of things, such as forensic tests, have either been attempted or questioned, and many people are totally reliant on the document being above board on all fronts, answering people's questions as to total authenticity fact that this document is totally and uneqivically authentic. Reason being, of course, that should this document have been misleading in any way, then we are all in trouble alley. The implications would be wide ranging and would question much of the research done into the genre of Ripperology.

Individuals have attempted, one way or another, to try to get this document forensically examined for a definitive answer because it has a reputation of being questionable. Various people have put themselves in the firing line by even questioning anything about this document. Reputations are a precarious thing, and the slightest hurt can cause a major abrasion. The vexing question, to my mind has to be... are we getting any nearer finding an answer with regard this document? Well, this writer's opinion, following on from and after the red-line and re-emphasised underlining of the document at some time during the last decade or so situation, the document itself as a valuable historically authentic document must surely now be severely questioned.

This defacing is an outrage. Thank you for that word Don.

I was brought up with this little line to consider from a very wise family member...Silence is the cruellest of lies.

Yes Don. I agree. Silence in abundance. And it is in spades.
Well I will not stay silent. It will not get me any friends, may lose me some and may even ostracise me from some form of supposed inner sanctum within this field...but I care not. In my honest opinion, we need some total honesty and openess about this document. Because the apparent vandalism of this historical document raises so many questions, past and present. It is fast becoming a joke.

I am not laughing.

best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

As this discussion has moved to another thread, I will post my observations here. I'm afraid that I cannot bring myself to extract the various quotes from the other thread by Jenni, Chris and Don etc, so will just produce a blanket response.

As the documentary featured the Marginalia, it was suggested that we attempt to film the real thing and get an interview with Neville Swanson. The latter was achieved by Paul and Jeff on 18th November. Neville gave Paul permission to use the Marginalia for the programme. It belongs to him and is effectively on loan to the Black Museum.

On 19th November, Paul and I went to Scotland Yard to pick up the book. Security was tight and we met Alan McCormick (curator of the black) in the foyer. Paperwork was signed and the book was handed over in a protective archival box. It was then taken back to Kent. The book did not leave the box until the 21st, when it was filmed at the studio.Only Paul and I touched the book during that time (wearing gloves, I might add). The relevant marginalia pages had a sheet of acetate covering them, held in place by a paperclip. Obviously these were removed during filming.

You could not imagine the care Paul took over this document, being aware of its fragility. The images used in the documentary were those shot that day - they are not archive pictures and have NOTHING added to them.

We noticed that there were red lines drawn in felt tip on the relevant pages and Paul mentioned that they were not there when he last saw the book (20 years ago, I think). We could offer no conclusion as to when these lines were added. I believe Paul discussed these with Keith Skinner soon afterwards (see JTR Forums).


Needless to say, after another day of filming for some potential bonus featurette, the book went back into its box and was returned to Alan McCormick at SY in the same condition it was received in.

I don't know what these extra pencil marks on p137 are supposed to be as I cannot identify them. We never saw anything (other than the red lines and a repositioned letter from Anderson) that looked any different from what had been seen before. We just saw it close-up and you saw it in HD.

Why did we not tell anybody about the lines? Simply because we did not tell anybody online we even had the book to film. We kept it quiet as there was all that rumpus over Aberconway memoranda going on at the time. The only people (hardly any) who knew were told one-to-one and in private conversation anyway.

That's all there is to it.

Problem is, I feel (maybe prematurely) that there is a potential witch-hunt brewing to ascertain the creator of those red lines. All I can say is it's nothing to do with Bullseye Lantern Productions.

[Monty]

To your satisfaction Phil? Such arrogance.

The poor wording of your post is destructive. The veilled accusations has already offended one valued researcher in the field and is not condusive in trying to establish the facts. The very facts you scream and demand.

I agree, we need to find out what the Dickens has gone on, yet rather than do that you start accusing a conspiracy of silence amongst Ripperologists and do no consider the numerous other parties who have viewed, handled and now house the document.

Your attitude really does annoy me, the wording in your post (and yours to a degree also Don) really adds fuel rather than establishing the facts.

I'm not laughing either Phil, its bad form.

This could have, should have been raised a lot better. Instead we will now endure endless insulting debates that really doesn't get us anywhere, all over a doc that whilst is undoubtedly important, is not essential.

My views, for what they are worth.

Monty

PS I was one of the few people who knew the BEL team had the doc, as John spoke to me about it inconfidence. I can confirm some of what John states above is true. Only some as obviously he didn't divulge everything. Only that they managed to obtained the doc and that it was going to be used.

[cerburusuk]

I have never had cause to visit Scotland Yard’s famous museum, but I always assumed that everyday members of the public could not just gain entry and examine the artefacts. Is it even possible for an individual to simply ‘borrow’ one of the exhibits? Surely there are protocols in place for anyone wishing to make a detailed study of a certain item?

[John Bennett]

I have never had cause to visit Scotland Yard’s famous museum, but I always assumed that everyday members of the public could not just gain entry and examine the artefacts. Is it even possible for an individual to simply ‘borrow’ one of the exhibits? Surely there are protocols in place for anyone wishing to make a detailed study of a certain item?

The Black Museum does not allow the general public in. In the case of the Marginalia, it was 'borrowed' (as you put it) by Paul on behalf of the production with the express permission of Neville Swanson, who owns it. Paul, as you are possibly aware, has a long relationship with the archives and those who work in them, going back over 20 years.

[Phil Carter]

As this discussion has moved to another thread, I will post my observations here. I'm afraid that I cannot bring myself to extract the various quotes from the other thread by Jenni, Chris and Don etc, so will just produce a blanket response.

As the documentary featured the Marginalia, it was suggested that we attempt to film the real thing and get an interview with Neville Swanson. The latter was achieved by Paul and Jeff on 18th November. Neville gave Paul permission to use the Marginalia for the programme. It belongs to him and is effectively on loan to the Black Museum.

On 19th November, Paul and I went to Scotland Yard to pick up the book. Security was tight and we met Alan McCormick (curator of the black) in the foyer. Paperwork was signed and the book was handed over in a protective archival box. It was then taken back to Kent. The book did not leave the box until the 21st, when it was filmed at the studio.Only Paul and I touched the book during that time (wearing gloves, I might add). The relevant marginalia pages had a sheet of acetate covering them, held in place by a paperclip. Obviously these were removed during filming.

You could not imagine the care Paul took over this document, being aware of its fragility. The images used in the documentary were those shot that day - they are not archive pictures and have NOTHING added to them.

We noticed that there were red lines drawn in felt tip on the relevant pages and Paul mentioned that they were not there when he last saw the book (20 years ago, I think). We could offer no conclusion as to when these lines were added. I believe Paul discussed these with Keith Skinner soon afterwards (see JTR Forums).


Needless to say, after another day of filming for some potential bonus featurette, the book went back into its box and was returned to Alan McCormick at SY in the same condition it was received in.

I don't know what these extra pencil marks on p137 are supposed to be as I cannot identify them. We never saw anything (other than the red lines and a repositioned letter from Anderson) that looked any different from what had been seen before. We just saw it close-up and you saw it in HD.

Why did we not tell anybody about the lines? Simply because we did not tell anybody online we even had the book to film. We kept it quiet as there was all that rumpus over Aberconway memoranda going on at the time. The only people (hardly any) who knew were told one-to-one and in private conversation anyway.

That's all there is to it.

Problem is, I feel (maybe prematurely) that there is a potential witch-hunt brewing to ascertain the creator of those red lines. All I can say is it's nothing to do with Bullseye Lantern Productions.

Hello John,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Most appreciated. The sequence of events explained by your good self is very open. thank you.

As youor anyone else can see from ANY post I have posted, I have AT NO POINT VEILED OR NOT..(note Neil) ever accused nor aimed any accusation of anything towards anyone on any production team. And anyone who thinks otherwise cannot read plain English. NOBODY has ever been accused of anything, Good grief you cannot even raise a question these days without being accused of being a conspiracy maker or trouble maker.

No, it isn't a witch hunt. What it is, FROM MY point of view is the state that has been exposed of this document. It is in a mess.

No Neil, it isnt an arrogant attitude at all. I am totally and utterly fed up. Don Souden, for once in my honest opinion, is DEAD RIGHT. Nobody is reacting to a defaced historical document in the way he expects it should be reacted to. I agree.

Scream and shout? Neil, I NEVER scream and rarely shout. Sorry. Misinterpretation. I will emphasise though.

Start a "conspiracy of silence"...?????? Please Neil. I didnt suggest it. DON SOUDEN RAISED THE ISSUE. So stop trying to create division of individual attack upon MY character, Neil. These questions simply needed raising.
I agreed with another (Don). Raise issues with him if you wish, but leave my character out of this. There are pieces of everyone's character that people object to. I am sticking to the issue, not interpreting whether a person is this or that. Unless I have to do it in response as I am doing here on occasion.

Poor form? Perhaps. But I will call it as I see it. I apologise for the lack of gentlemanly form when this whole discussion about the Marginalia, on this thread, started ages ago , rightly, by Ally, has been shown to be attack after attack.

The point is that the margunalia is a thorn in the side of Ripperology FOR SOME.
This new enlightenment has helped this situation not one iota.

Finally Neil... you said the following..

The poor wording of your post is destructive. The veilled accusations has already offended one valued researcher in the field and is not condusive in trying to establish the facts. The very facts you scream and demand.

This can be misinterpreted by the reader as meaning that I have made accusatiuons in my post, which I have not. I wish to make that perfectly clear.

Whether you agree with the manner my words were written is one thing, and you have the right to disagree and interpret them YOUR way. It wasn't meant the way YOU read me...but as you are always doing that exact thing to just about every post I write, and I have to re-explain myself to an infinite degree, either you and I cannot communicate, or you and I totally misunderstand each other. I believe you misinterpret. Most of the time innocently.Rarely, to try and in jovial manner wind me up.

John, I have the utmost admiration for. His reply was succinct and to the point, I admire his work, as I do yours Neil.

And Neil, you talk of "endless debate"...well your posting is a contributary factor is such a debate... as was mine.

Am I satisfied now? No. I am not.,,, lets get away from the individual hatchet chopping and back to basics...what happened, when, and how was this allowed to happen. As regards the document not being all that important Neil, I disagree. Kosminki's innocence hangs on it. And his reputation as a murderer or not. There may be family members who think it mightily important, for all I know.

best wishes

Phil

[Ally]

Why is it that conspiracy theorists are always, but always, shrieking drama queens?

That being said...

I have not seen the documentary with the images of the defaced marginalia. I would hope that someone would put up some still pictures soon so that those in America might have an opportunity.

I have had an interest in the marginalia for a while (as evidenced by my name being the one that started this thread).

No one believes for an instant that anyone related to this documentary is the one who defaced the marginalia. As much as I think certain members of the team are idiotic dimwits, I don't think anyone with a genuine interest in Ripperology would be that pathetic, and whatever else one can say about some of the people in charge, they all have a genuine interest (except for John Bennett he's just in it for the hordes of nubile women and the beer).

There are of course only two possibilities:

1. The marginalia was defaced by the Swanson family before giving it to the Black Museum. If this is the case, and the lines have been gone over with fresher pencil, and the red felt added, then a lot of the "the swanson family would never" argument goes out the window.

2. Someone at the crime museum did it. Which would seem kind of uh...unlikely considering you know..museum. Preservation...etc. Not theirs, just on loan, still belongs to the family. Etc.


Logically it seems pretty clear that this was done by a member of the Swanson family. For whatever reason, we cannot guess, but it does seem to put the marginalia in yet another firestorm of questioning the authenticity. Clearly they are willing to add their "improvements" to the book, to what degree, we cannot be certain.


I am surprised that having seen the defacement, Paul did not re-contact Mr. Swanson to ask him about it. Clearly as his permission was obtained to view it, it seems a logical follow up to contact him and ask him about the defacement.

I would wonder why that was not done.

[Phil Carter]

Why is it that conspiracy theorists are always, but always, shrieking drama queens?

That being said...

I have not seen the documentary with the images of the defaced marginalia. I would hope that someone would put up some still pictures soon so that those in America might have an opportunity.

I have had an interest in the marginalia for a while (as evidenced by my name being the one that started this thread).

No one believes for an instant that anyone related to this documentary is the one who defaced the marginalia. As much as I think certain members of the team are idiotic dimwits, I don't think anyone with a genuine interest in Ripperology would be that pathetic, and whatever else one can say about some of the people in charge, they all have a genuine interest (except for John Bennett he's just in it for the hordes of nubile women and the beer).

There are of course only two possibilities:

1. The marginalia was defaced by the Swanson family before giving it to the Black Museum. If this is the case, and the lines have been gone over with fresher pencil, and the red felt added, then a lot of the "the swanson family would never" argument goes out the window.

2. Someone at the crime museum did it. Which would seem kind of uh...unlikely considering you know..museum. Preservation...etc. Not theirs, just on loan, still belongs to the family. Etc.


Logically it seems pretty clear that this was done by a member of the Swanson family. For whatever reason, we cannot guess, but it does seem to put the marginalia in yet another firestorm of questioning the authenticity. Clearly they are willing to add their "improvements" to the book, to what degree, we cannot be certain.


I am surprised that having seen the defacement, no one re-contacted Mr. Swanson to ask him about it. Clearly as his permission was obtained to view it, it seems a logical follow up to contact him and ask him about the defacement.

I would wonder why that was not done.

Hello Ally,

As I am NOT a "conspiracy theorist", you will have to ask one of them.
As to your other points, the possibilities you mentioned I have already raised.
Thank you for seeing that in the same light.

best wishes

Phil

edit: as I am at a friends house, I am only using a borrowed pc and cannot reply imm.

[Monty]

And so it begins.

You have a habit of fuse lighting Phil, so please let's cut the crap and give ol Neil a little more nouse than you feel he warrants.

I am not trying to assasinate your character as you put it, you are playing the victim and it doesn't suit.

Your post was imflammatory. Lines such as "Why the silence by all those who knew of the tampering and never uttered a word, far less a cry of outrage?" Really does not help the issue.

You openly admit you agree with Dons post yet point out it was Don who raised the 'conspiracy of silence'. So?, you have just stated you agree with it.

And yes, arrogant. Demanding answers, being 'satisfied' with Johns answer (not that he is obliged to give one) setting yourself up as a Ripperological Crusader for the greater good of the field does not aid one jot. It ailienates and provokes.

And I am not in the field to be admired, not that I consider myself at being so. I leave that to false idols like AP.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

And so it begins.

You have a habit of fuse lighting Phil, so please let's cut the crap and give ol Neil a little more nouse than you feel he warrants.

I am not trying to assasinate your character as you put it, you are playing the victim and it doesn't suit.

Your post was imflammatory. Lines such as "Why the silence by all those who knew of the tampering and never uttered a word, far less a cry of outrage?" Really does not help the issue.

You openly admit you agree with Dons post yet point out it was Don who raised the 'conspiracy of silence'. So?, you have just stated you agree with it.

And yes, arrogant. Demanding answers, being 'satisfied' with Johns answer (not that he is obliged to give one) setting yourself up as a Ripperological Crusader for the greater good of the field does not aid one jot. It ailienates and provokes.

And I am not in the field to be admired, not that I consider myself at being so. I leave that to false idols like AP.

Monty

Hello Neil,

Crusader? Good grief. Demanding answers? No..light fuses? yes. So what? someone needs to do it now and again. I am just trying to get to the bottom of all this Neil.

No I am NOT trying to wind you up in any way. You just think of me in the wrong eway Neil, and are a superb wind up merchant...but it doesnt work. I posted my thoughts. Like them or not

best wishes

Phil

[Ally]

Hello Ally,

As I am NOT a "conspiracy theorist", you will have to ask one of them.
As to your other points, the possibilities you mentioned I have already raised.
Thank you for seeing that in the same light.

best wishes

Phil

I rarely read what you write. I find you extremely distasteful and your habit of insulting Casebook's administration in private for "raking in piles of cash off the murdered backs of dead women" while using the forums Stephen provides you free of charge and berating others for lack of decency in discourse makes you one of the very few people in this field I find completely beyond the pale. Now again, it could be that I have been a victim of false slander against you, and you aren't in the habit of denigrating the people who run Casebook in such a fashion, after all, people in this field are gossip mongering little gits sometimes, which is why I like to just say what I have to say right out in public so no one has any doubt where I stand.

But even if you aren't a backstabbing phony, you are a conspiracy theorist, and your every post shows you are firmly convinced that the great Ripperological money making machine is determined to "hide the truth".

[Ally]

Now I want to point to my post above dealing with the Swanson marginalia which is really what this thread is about and while I love a good brawl amongst the people, Phil Carter is not what this is about.

This is purely about defacement done to the Swanson marginalia.

Now again, I want to be clear: I do not in anyway believe that anyone related to the documentary had ANYTHING to do with defacing the marginalia.

But this was a documentary. Supposedly the one about the facts, the truth, the seeking. They chose to feature the Swanson Marginalia in a fairly prominent manner and the second half was supposedly therefore highly Kosminski oriented.

So one has to ask, why wasn't the defacement brought to light? Was there no pause given about the fact that it had been defaced, there were questions about the origination and the additions would be questioned?

Was there no pause given or clarification sought??

I do not like having what I feel are legitimate questions dismissed as a witch hunt so I would like to completely divorce myself from any shared role with Phil Carter. I have had an interest in this before he reared his head on the boards and I will have this interest long after he's faded into obscurity.

[Monty]

I shall leave this thread as I agree with Ally, this is detracting from the real debate.

Wind up merchant? I find that ironic.

Monty

[John Bennett]

I have not seen the documentary with the images of the defaced marginalia. I would hope that someone would put up some still pictures soon so that those in America might have an opportunity.

One of my photos of the marginalia taken on 21st Nov 2010, showing the red lines in question. This is not a still from the documentary.



I don't wish to get roped into the discussions that have now developed, I have just posted this so people can see what the fuss is about.

JB