There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Ally]

Thank you John!

[John Bennett]

You're welcome.

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).

A perfectly good reason to be involved in anything, I reckon!

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

There are still a number of people directly and indirectly involved with the marginalia who are still not willing to co-operate in trying to prove or disprove the authenticity of some or all of the annotations. That also includes The Metropolitan Police.

I am not going to name names having regard to the shenanigens which went on the last time but they know who they are..

[Ally]

In other news. Since it appears that there is debate happening on two fronts on this, I am going to reply to what I want here.

There is question as to whether it was worth upsetting Neville Swanson to question him regarding the lines. There is comment that the forums (any of them) are not the place to discuss this and private means would be the best way.

I am sorry but that ship sailed. Springing this on people with no forewarning was not the proper way of doing this if one wanted the markings to pass unremarked. Earlier in this thread, John said no prior mention was made because they wanted it to be a surprise. It was a surprise all right, but the surprise of the unremarked upon defacement has eclipsed any surprise of showing the actual document.

Hoping that it would pass without comment or notice and that all questions would be whispered privately and not openly asked was a futile hope.

The forums may not be the place where people want to discuss things, but the backroom wheeling and dealing and private sharing amongst the select few ended with the invention of the internet. People now have the means to debate openly and question openly.

When one discourages open debate, one fans the flames of the conspiracy nuts. If there is a fear that questioning will slam the gates shut on further sharing, I understand that. But when there is a question about the authenticity of what is being shared, what value does further (questionable) offerings bring? Sit in silence to hope for more goodies when all you might be gathering is fool's gold?

No one who questioned Neville Swanson was required to accuse him. But it could well have been framed in the inevitable: there are going to be questions, why were the marks added, for what purpose, etc.

Springing it on people with no forewarning makes the whole thing seem more dodgy than it probably is.

[Monty]

Its not the questioning that shuts gates, its the manner and insinuations that causes the closure Ally.

And as we have seen, internet debating often detracts and rarely promotes open debate.

Do you honestly think we will get to the bottom of this here or any other forum?

Monty

[Ally]

No I don't. But I find that throwing it out there without any mention or prior warning was a surefire way to stir the method least likely to get results.

As I said, if there had been mention beforehand, and not just a toss out without comment, much of the vitriol could have been avoided.

As you said, it is the way one goes about doing something that determines the results.

The way they have gone about doing this has resulted in some unfortunate questions.

If they weren't prepared to answer the questions about the markings, it seems as if the current original should not have been used. The scoop of having the original document has been completely eclipsed by the unexplained defacement. Once they realized that the original had been altered, they had to have known the shitestorm that would result if they used it without any comment or explanation. Especially considering there were already questions about the marginalia.

[Natalie Severn]

Lets not forget that Neville Swanson not only gave permission to Paul to use his book for the programme but also appeared as Paul"s guest for an interview.The book belongs to Neville Swanson after all.So perhaps Paul was also grateful for his cooperation and unwilling to start subjecting him to cross questioning him these red lines in margins etc
Norma

[Monty]

No I don't. But I find that throwing it out there without any mention or prior warning was a surefire way to stir the method least likely to get results.

As I said, if there had been mention beforehand, and not just a toss out without comment, much of the vitriol could have been avoided.

As you said, it is the way one goes about doing something that determines the results.

The way they have gone about doing this has resulted in some unfortunate questions.

If they weren't prepared to answer the questions about the markings, it seems as if the current original should not have been used. The scoop of having the original document has been completely eclipsed by the unexplained defacement. Once they realized that the original had been altered, they had to have known the shitestorm that would result if they used it without any comment or explanation. Especially considering there were already questions about the marginalia.

Blimey Ally,

Didn't have you down as a conspirasist.

So you are saying they way it was 'released' means its fair game to query in such a provokative manner?

I would have hoped to have established the facts first before accusing. Especially if you haven't seen the doc or the way it was presented.

As ever, with love
Monty

[Ally]

How precisely is wondering who defaced the book and an opinion that the way this was presented was idiotic, evidence of my being a conspirasist? If they wanted to defuse the questions, it shouldn't have been sprung on people with no warning. That's just basic good tactics. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy.

They decided to use the original book for the documentary. Upon viewing, they realized that it had been defaced. They made no mention of the defacement publicly before the documentary. They gave no forewarning that it had been defaced.

Then there is surprise at the resulting questions? Do you really think people were going to let it go completely unremarked upon? Obviously they knew this would garner remarks because they were all remarking on it amongst themselves!

At that point they had a couple of choices. They could have chosen not to use the original book so as not to stir the controversy and the questions about who had defaced the pages. Or they could choose to use the defaced book and let the comments and the queries fly. They chose the latter.

So I ask you....Do you really think it is completely outrageous that people are wondering who defaced this book? You actually think that people questioning who defaced this book that has been supposedly kept safe in the crime museum for years is unacceptable?

Whether I have seen the doc or not is irrelevant. It is clear there is no explanation for the defacement.

What precisely is provocative about wondering who defaced this book? There are only two possibilities. Someone in the Swanson family or someone who had access to the Crime museum. If people are disturbed by those implications, that's not the fault of the people asking the questions.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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.

Great photograph. Obviously the lines were drawn with a straightedge. What a puzzling thing to do....trivial in the sense that the text is not affected, but non-trivial in terms of messing with an important document.

As I said, I'd be afraid to even put a Post-It note on the page. But again it only serves to show we as Ripperologists care more about this stuff than do normal folk. Swanson probably just wanted to emphasize the Marginalia. Thank God he didn't use a yellow highlighter!

[Monty]

Come now Ally,

You know fully well my beef isn't with the questioning but rather the style of questioning.

There was accusation of conspiracy within the querying. I'm merely saying facts should have been established before theories drawn

Monty

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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.

Great photograph. Obviously the lines were drawn with a straightedge. What a puzzling thing to do....trivial in the sense that the text is not affected, but non-trivial in terms of messing with an important document.

As I said, I'd be afraid to even put a Post-It note on the page. But again it only serves to show we as Ripperologists care more about this stuff than do normal folk. Swanson probably just wanted to emphasize the Marginalia. Thank God he didn't use a yellow highlighter!

[Ally]

I agree that the hysterical tone and finger pointing of some people have detracted from the what is important here.

What is important, period, is who defaced the marginalia. No matter who did it, the answer raises uncomfortable questions. Attempting to silence the questions because one doesn't like the tone they are spoken in, doesn't solve the problem though.

There are legitimate questions here.

Chris has said that the markings were there when he first saw it a couple of years ago so it's not a recent addition. I read his postings on the subject from back then and while they are very explicit, he makes no mention of the red lines. I am not accusing him of anything but I would like to know if he told anyone about the markings at the time and if he did not mention it to anyone, then why not? Again, I am not accusing him of anything. I am not crying conspiracy. I am not blaming him.

I just don't understand how someone can see that an important document has been defaced and not mention it to anyone. He discussed viewing the marginalia, he discussed the differences in the pencil but left out any mention of red felt markings. I am sure he has good reason, I just don't currently understand them. If I had seen something like that, I would immediately have contacted someone, Stewart or Paul or someone who could possibly help make sense of it.

The entire thing is baffling.

[Chris]

Ally

No, I didn't mention them to anyone, for the same reason I didn't mention them on the boards, which I have already explained on the other thread - because they had evidently been added after Stewart photographed the book in 2000, and so were obviously nothing to do with the original annotations.

If you find that baffling, I'm afraid you'll just have to remain baffled.

[Ally]

I am sorry you don't see the implications Chris, they seem fairly clear to me.

Either the Black Museum is not a safe place to house documents if people can break in and deface them;

or

The Swanson family did not consider the book all that important and were capable of adding their own marks to it.

The former has more implications than to just Ripperology but to anything stored in the Black Museum. And the latter is important because there are already questions about the provenance of the marginalia and who has written in the book. Any further additions just calls that more into question.