There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[cerburusuk]

[QUOTE=Ally;162332]
As I have already said, the owner of the book can do whatever he wants with the book, it is his book.

This is, of course, absolutely true. What people do with their personnel property is entirely up to them. If Mr. Swanson decided to adorn the pages with drawings of stick figures he is perfectly entitled to do so, and no harm done.
However, if he then went on to claim they had been drawn by L.S. Lowry, that becomes fraud.
Sean.

[robhouse]

So you are suggesting that your post #464 does not insinuate some nefarious doings by "members of the Swanson family?" If you say so, fine. I am happy to leave it at that.

However, I will say that I honestly don't like how when something like this happens, people seem to be on a hair trigger to jump up and start throwing suggestive accusations and insinuations left and right... questioning (for the umpteenth time) the authenticity of this document, among other things. In this one thread, you have insinuated wrongdoing by the Swanson family, negligence by the crime museum, and additional underlining of the marginalia itself in pencil (which also turns out to be incorrect. And granted you were just repeating what someone else had written, but in any case, it was apparently unfounded.) Others have called the red lines an "outrage" and suggested that there is a "conspiracy of silence" involving Chris Phillips (of all people) and John Bennett presumably. I think it is perhaps time for people to take a deep breath and calm down. We should try to collect information and find out what happened first, then post the crazy theories after.

RH

[jason_c]

If anyone has evidence the marginalia wasn't written by Swanson, please post it.

[KatBradshaw]

[QUOTE=Ally;162332]If you want to stick to strict vernacular precision fine. People besides Swanson have apparently made "additions" over the years.
QUOTE]

Ally I have seen and heard you make comment on other people's use of language so please don't criticise me for doing the same thing! There are clear conotations to saying 'tamper' which has nothing to do with being 'vernacular' at all.

[Ally]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper

a : to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with <did not want to tamper with tradition>

That is as accurate a definition as can be made. To tamper with is to change what has been. The word tamper is completely valid and does not imply anything in relation to fraud or a con in this context. The fact that it is theirs and they may tamper with it all that they wish does not negate the fact that we are free to have an opinion that the changes were for the worse and not desirable.

People have felt free to add to the book, even after its relative importance was known. There is absolutely no way that anyone can honestly say that there is a 100 percent guarantee that no one made any additions before the relative worth of it as a Ripper artifact came to light.

[robhouse]

Tamper:

1. to meddle, esp. for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing (usually fol. by with ): Someone has been tampering with the lock.
2. to make changes in something, esp. in order to falsify (usually fol. by with ): to tamper with official records.
3. to engage secretly or improperly in something.
4. to engage in underhand or corrupt dealings, esp. in order to influence improperly (usually fol. by with ): Any lawyer who tries to tamper with a jury should be disbarred.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tamper

[Ally]

If anyone has evidence the marginalia wasn't written by Swanson, please post it.

Likewise, if anyone has any evidence that the marginalia was written by Swanson, please post it.

[robhouse]

You wrote:

"How do we know where the tampering begins and ends. People say "ah well we have Stewarts original photos". Sorry those now prove nothing. If Stewart had photographed the document 5 years prior to when he did, would "Kosminski was the suspect" have been there? "

So when you suggest that someone might have added "Kosminski was the suspect" as an example of "tampering" that this is not implying that someone was intentionally altering the document in a fraudulent and deceptive way? How is that possible? Also, how are you now trying to imply that you actually meant something else when you used the word "tamper."
RH

[Ally]

Tamper:

1. to meddle, esp. for the purpose of altering, damaging, or misusing (usually fol. by with ): Someone has been tampering with the lock.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tamper

And your number one definition is exactly as I used it. The document was altered, damaged or misused.

It still doesn't imply falsification or a con. Note that when it is used with WITH, it has no overt connoation of falsification but simply of change for the worse.

So thank you for proving my point.

[robhouse]

Likewise, if anyone has any evidence that the marginalia was written by Swanson, please post it.

The fact that the document was examined by a professional handwriting expert and confirmed to be authentic would be a start. The provenance would be a second thing. The fact that the handwriting is consistent with other marginalia in the book.

[robhouse]

Ally,

You yourself used the word "tampering" in the context of someone adding the words "Kosminski was the suspect" to the document. Are you now claiming that someone added that sentence to a paragraph that was signed "D.S.S" and faked Swanson's handwriting... and that this was somehow not "falsification" of a document?

RH

[robhouse]

Note that when it is used with WITH, it has no overt connoation of falsification but simply of change for the worse.

How about this example:

"to make changes in something, esp. in order to falsify (usually fol. by with ): to tamper with official records."

[Ally]

You wrote:

"How do we know where the tampering begins and ends. People say "ah well we have Stewarts original photos". Sorry those now prove nothing. If Stewart had photographed the document 5 years prior to when he did, would "Kosminski was the suspect" have been there? "

So when you suggest that someone might have added "Kosminski was the suspect" as an example of "tampering" that this is not implying that someone was intentionally altering the document in a fraudulent and deceptive way? How is that possible? Also, how are you now trying to imply that you actually meant something else when you used the word "tamper."
RH

I have already explained this twice now. The book may well have been loaned to someone, who like whomever added the red lines, felt free to add their own notations. That does not mean it was done as a deliberate fraud.

The book could have been loaned, someone recalled a conversation they had had, and went ahah ...and added it. Or maybe they did some of the underlining we presume to be Swansons.

If things such as big bright red lines passed apparently unnoticed, there is no way of knowing for sure, who has added what to the notations that Swanson made.

The "kosminsky was the suspect" is a clearly added on insertion at the end. The person who wrote it might have been D. Swanson. It might have been someone who inserted their own thought at the end of his, and before the initials did it decades ago, and didn't think much about it, because they never much considered it was that important and has no idea that anyone cares or that its ever become a question. It could have been inserted by someone attempting to perpetuate a fraud. It could have been someone attempting to con Neville Swanson or play a joke on him that's now gotten too big to take back.

Considering that big, bright, red lines were added at a much later date with no apparent notice being taken, no one can say for certain when that notation was added, or who precisely added it. No one can say what was underlined by Swanson, and what was underlined by anyone else who borrowed the book throughout the years.

Everyone is quick to say well people add notes, highlight, no big deal, the red lines aren't that important. Except of course we can't question what else might have been added by anyone who borrowed the book throughout the years, because god forbid, we don't to call the provenance into question.

Well sorry. It is clear the book has been added to by people other than Swanson. Swanson is not the only person who has ever made additions in the book.

So who knows which ones Swanson really made, and which ones anyone else in the history of the book made?

You cannot say for certain. No one can. The owner doesn't even know how the big bright red lines got there. So how can we say for sure how ANY of the notations got there? Clearly the book wasn't under lock and key even AFTER its importance was known. So why would we think it was untouched before its importance was known?

If you want to search every dictionary out there to find the one that will best support your argument, fine, feel free. The book has been tampered with. You can define it however you want.

[mariab]

If anyone has evidence the marginalia wasn't written by Swanson, please post it.

There is evidence that the handwriting in the Swanson marginalia shows slight discrepancies. Most probably this means that the marginalia were jotted down at different time frames, by the same person (Swanson).
As Rob House and Kate Bradshaw already said, 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.
And most important of all is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Clack
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.
John Bennett wrote:
Absolutely. I'm looking at closeup photos of the pencil writing and can see no evidence of it either. The claim is painly nonsense.
As Chris Phillips suggested, we simply need to compare the channel 5 documentary frames with the photos taken in 2000 by SPE and look for discrepancies. Which I'm willing to bet there won't be any.

[Natalie Severn]

Modern forensic handwriting tests could probably soon separate out the wheat from the chaff with regards to who wrote what if there is concern about that.I agree its a shame about the red lines but I don"t agree the document is discredited because of them .
Norma