There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Chris]

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit dim, but who first suggested that the marginalia notes had been 'retraced' over? I keep seeing mention of this.

Don Souden posted on the other thread that he had been told that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

[cerburusuk]

Unless you have evidence to show they were responsible I would be careful of what you write. We still have Libel laws in this country.
Sean.

[Ally]

You are quite right. I phrased that very poorly and I will ask that that line be erased.

I should have said, "while it was in the keeping of the Swanson family, it has been tampered with."

That was an extremely poor choice of words on my part and I will have it erased or amended and I apologize for the misrepresentation.

[Rob Clack]

Don Souden posted on the other thread that he had been told that "on page 137 they appear to have gone over Swanson's pencil lining with fresh, ruled pencil lines."

I've just had a look at the documentary again and I can't see any evidence that the pencil writing has been gone over.

Rob

[cerburusuk]

[quote=Supe;162058]
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."

I believe this is the first mention of other markings besides the red felt lines.
Sean.

[John Bennett]

I've just had a look at the documentary again and I can't see any evidence that the pencil writing has been gone over.

Rob

Absolutely. I'm looking at closeup photos of the pencil writing and can se no evidence of it either. The claim is painly nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=cerburusuk;162314]

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."

I believe this is the first mention of other markings besides the red felt lines.
Sean.

Any tampering of the original writing would effectively rule out any new forensic tests being carried out and also any new handwriting examination.

Famous quote
" Oh what a tangled web we weave as first we flatter to deceive"

[Chris]

Absolutely. I'm looking at closeup photos of the pencil writing and can se no evidence of it either. The claim is painly nonsense.

I think this relates to the underlining, not the handwriting. I guess one would have to do a comparison with the photos taken in 2000 and look for differences.

[Monty]

Heh, I should be a clarvoyant. I shall announce Saturdays lottery numbers tomorrow.

I hate being proved right on this, but I am. Rapidly degrading into a farce.

Monty

[Ally]

What I find to be a farce is everyone' s attempt to sweep this quietly under the rug with a "oh pooh, pooh, who cares".

I thought at the very least people who spend their lives researching a subject have more respect for historical accuracy and preserving evidence than that. Especially in a field with so little contemporary evidence of value.

So I guess I have been proven wrong. People only care about maintaining documents as long as it doesn't rock the boat and doesn't raise questions people would rather not have to answer.

Peace out.

[robhouse]

Ally

I think there is a world of difference between someone very innocently putting a line in the margin of a book to highlight something, and someone intentionally forging a document. You seem to be suggesting that since someone has put a line in the margin... well, who knows now what else they may have done. You keep repeating that this blows out of the water the suggestion that "The swanson family would never tamper with it." I think this same type of reasoning might be used to argue that if someone uses a knife to cut a loaf of bread... well, who knows, maybe they used the same knife to stab someone. The action, (cutting something) is the same... the motivation behind the two actions is in no way related. I will speak in Nevill's defense here... he is a very nice guy. Making such insulting and offensive suggestions is, in my opinion, quite uncalled for.

People underline and highlight books. If this is what you mean by tampering, then fine. But tamper has negative insinuations in my mind. And innocently underlining or highlighting a section in a book is motivated by such a completely opposite instinct as intentionally forging a document, that I cannot see how one action has any bearing on the likelihood of doing another. I think your reasoning is quite flawed in this instance.

Rob H

[Ally]

No my logic is completely sound. Someone felt free to make their own notations in the book that is clearly not Swanson's.

That being the case, there is no actual way of knowing what notations were Swanson's and what were not.

That is a basic bottom line. If we were to look at the document today, knowing that people who have had access to the book throughout the years felt free to make their own marginalia, you cannot with any definitiveness state that there were not others who did likewise throughout the years.

And to put it more bluntly: if no one noticed that someone had gone in and drawn bright red felt lines down the pages, how could they possibly claim they would have noticed if someone slipped four little words "Kosminsky was the suspect" into the text.

It is clear that additions can be made apparently without anyone noticing. You cannot therefore claim that anything as obviously added on as "Kosminsky was the suspect" has an impeccable providence. It cannot with any degree of certainty be stated that the person who added that was Donald Swanson, and not some other Swanson down the line, or someone who had access to the book from the Swanson family.

If and addition of bright red marker can go completely unnoticed, so can a couple of little words.

[robhouse]

So you are claiming that someone added "notations" and "marginalia"? Do you know what those words mean? What has been added is two lines, clearly to highlight the page? And how do you mean that these went unnoticed?

Ally, I still do not think you understood my point. Yes of course, with any document that has been in private possession there is the possibility of forgery, alteration, additions etc. How does the addition of these lines make it more likely that the document is forged? I do not follow how. People underline and highlight books that they own. Does that imply that people who underline books are likely to be forgers or conmen?
Rob

[KatBradshaw]

Red lines drawn in the book are not tampering with the marginalia. The accusation of tampering suggests the addition of or alteration with the notes in the margin. I think the assertation that the Swansons did not 'tamper' with the margin stands even if one did at some point highlight this section with red pen, pencil, crayon, blood whatever!

[Ally]

If you want to stick to strict vernacular precision fine. People besides Swanson have apparently made "additions" over the years. So there is no way of deciding strictly which additions were Swansons, and which were any number of other people who have had access to the book throughout the years.

The owner of the book says that at the time he handed it over to the crime museum, although the red lines were already there, he did not notice them. This has come from Paul Begg, on a post earlier on this thread. So I believe we can trust this source.

If the owners of the book don't notice bright red lines being added to their book, can we honestly say that they would absolutely have caught someone slipping in a couple of words?

As for the rest, no where did I say that the people were conmen. As I have already said, the owner of the book can do whatever he wants with the book, it is his book.

What I am saying is, if he did not notice that someone had added bright red lines to his book, there is no way anyone can claim with any certainty that he would have noticed if someone wrote a couple of words. The person who wrote the words doesn't even have to be a conman. It could be someone that was loaned the book, who likewise felt free to make some additions.


The bottom line is simple: if the owner doesn't notice bright red felt lines being added to his book, there is no way of knowing for sure that he would have noticed had someone added a couple of words. That doesn't make him a conman and I have made no suggestion that Neville Swanson is, so please don't put words in my mouth. It could have been any member of the Swanson family throughout the decades, or someone the book was loaned to.