There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Trevor Marriott]

Obviously the fact the story behind the markings was not made public indicates the matter is private.

Monty

This is not just about the markings its about everything and everyone ever connected to the marginalia

We should change the thread to "RIPPERGATE"

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

The Met [or whomever] has already allowed members of the Ripperological cartel to read the McCormick document.

So why are the rest of us being given the bum's rush?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

This is not just about the markings its about everything and everyone ever connected to the marginalia

We should change the thread to "RIPPERGATE"

HA! ROFLMAO!

[Monty]

This is not just about the markings its about everything and everyone ever connected to the marginalia

We should change the thread to "RIPPERGATE"

You seem to have avoided, I mean missed, my question Trevor.


Simon,

Do you really need an answer to that question?

As stated, there is no obigation to show to the world and its mother. What right, or qualification do you have to view the document?

Monty

[caz]

Can I ask you a question, Trevor?

And before you answer it (as I hope you will) I will answer the same question myself.

If an expert, or experts, of your choosing were to conduct further tests and declare themselves 100% satisfied that Swanson wrote all the pencil notes, how would you react?

As for me, I'd actually be slightly worried, because reputable experts rarely if ever express 100% certainty that their verdict is the correct one.

If you would share my worries in that regard, I wonder what, if anything, could ever make you believe that your suspicions were needless after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

To my mind,

1) The book was brought into the awareness of the public by the family themselves. It was they themselves who originally approached a newspaper or two for publication of the contents. Since that date it has been in the public mind as well as in public view. Any subsequent action involving this book and it's markings must be therefore are open to public scrutiny, especially. if I am not mistaken here, as the document that pertains to the authenticity of the writings within the book was asked for and attained by a public authority, the Met Police themselves via the Black museum? However, if an individual has commisssioned the report, then the report is PARTLY given to public exposure in a book afterwards, then we have the question of who is allowed to look at that document in full thereafter?

2) The fact that this document was first used in an apparent approach to the NOTW newspaper, apparently turned down, and then re-surfaced in another newspaper 6 years later, leaves, for me personally, a great big question or two. This was a sensational piece of history as the 2nd newspaper has said in covering the story. The greatest murder mystery of all time apparently solved... yet

a) the reason we have been given for the original newspaper's refusal to print the story is a "change of ownership" at that newspaper. Hang on a minute I say... if in 1987 it was regarded as such an important and all-revealing document in 1987, then what changed it from the presentation in 1981, when it was turned down? The sensation of the man NAMED as "Jack the Ripper" cannot change in 6 years... it was still THE greatest murder mystery yet unsolved in history... and the NOTW had, and has, a reputation as a sensationalist newspaper. A sensationalist newspaper NOT printing the "true" name of Jack the Ripper? Just because of an ownership change in 1981? Err...

b) Everyone who know's anything about media knows that people do the rounds with stories. If you don't succeed at one newspaper, then go somewhere else. The Sunday People for example, is on a par with the NOTW.
They were not approached. Infact.. NOBODY was approached...for another 6 years... now that brings out alarm bells to my ears. WHY WAIT 6 more years to attempt to sell the story again? That is where the date of 1987 comes in.
One year from the 100th anniversary. Books being lined up left right and centre, a plethora infact. Some were clearly cashing in on this anniversary. (NO, I do NOT name them, nor point fingers, please note). But in 1981 it wasn't sensationalist enough. So what happened in 1987?

Perhaps some of you have your own idea. It is quite clear that Trevor Marriott, and others, are trying to get to the bottom of this. Why?
Well, to my mind, because it is needed. Clarification, confirmation and an attempt to sort this out once and for all. Because the very situation surrounding this document craves the need for openess... just look what the current state of play is when this "sacred cow" of Ripperology is in any way questioned. There ARE fair reasons to question it which have been stated at or near the start of this thread, and more thereafter, by many a person. The newest additions to the document do indeed put this document into the light again, and do indeed bring out more questions that pertain to it, and all that those questions entail.

This isn't in any way a personal slight against anyone.
It is an opinion. Pure and simple. Worthy of consideration to some, worthless to others. But it is about a private document brought to the attention of the public, willingly, by it's owners. Thereafter, I honestly believe, it is open to scrutiny by that public, and all other documents pertaining to it the same. ALL of the public.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

What right, or qualification, did the Ripperological cartel have to view the document?

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

And wherever would they get the idea that an intelligent and objective examination of all the facts, leading to resolution and concensus, is just a tad unlikely to take place on a message board where there has been a ‘defecation’ of the document in question and ‘dispersions’ cast, on top of all the grinding of axes and personal pissing contests

Agree with Caz here. Not sure if the Swanson family, the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum, and Alan McCormick would appreciate the humour in the situation, especially when words such as “defacing“, “defecation“ (), and “vandalizing“ were spoken/written. The fact that the parties holding the sources are NOT legally obliged to release them for further testing or to answer queries requires extreme caution, delicacy, and diplomatic skills during the negotiations. It's not the best idea to come forward with suspicions or accusations during ongoing negotiations pertaining to access to sources. One can keep their suspicions to themselves, and come forward with them at a more appropriate time, preferably AFTER having had access to the sources in question.

Simon Wood wrote:
The Met [or whomever] has already allowed members of the Ripperological cartel to read the McCormick document.
So why are the rest of us being given the bum's rush?
Because Kozminski-specialists might deserve been taken a tad more seriously than the average poster when seeking access to related sources? Because ill-timed open discussions blew away the PR?

Apart from this, I find the discussion of the indelible pencil fascinating, and I wonder what exactly Trevor Marriot refers to when he says that the marginalia were commissioned by the Met Police...

[Chris]

So what happened in 1987?

There's no mystery about that. It was the publicity surrounding the appearance of Martin Fido's book in 1987 that prompted Jim Swanson to contact the Daily Telegraph. This has all been discussed in great detail on the boards in the past.

[Monty]

Depends on who the cartel is doent it Simon.

Monty

[caz]

Hi Phil,

In my opinion there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with questioning anything and everything in this world.

Now that's off my perfectly splendid chest, let me ask you one (and anyone else who cares to suggest an answer).

Assuming the only reason for promoting the marginalia in the first place was to big up the idea that Swanson had succeeded where nobody else had in identifying by name the big one - Jack the Ripper himself - why would anyone with half a brain not have pencilled in the words:

'Kosminski was the murderer', if the scribe was not Swanson himself?

What on earth was there to lose?

For a hap'orth of tar the ship was lost...

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

There's no mystery about that. It was the publicity surrounding the appearance of Martin Fido's book in 1987 that prompted Jim Swanson to contact the Daily Telegraph. This has all been discussed in great detail on the boards in the past.

Hello Chris,

Exactly. But it still doesn't answer the question..why wait 6 years with a sensational, world beating story? It makes no sense, to my ears. Nobody, I suggest, would sit on that hot news for 6 years. And I also suggest it to be reasonable to suggest that The News of the World would not turn that story down for the "change of mangagement" reason. It's a world beater. Naming the greatest unsolved murder mystery killer. No newspaper would turn that down for that reason. Especially not a sensationalist newspaper like the NOTW. That is why I question 1987.. when an up-market newspaper DID print this sensational revelation. If Martin Fido's book prompted Swanson to contact the DT, then what prompted him in 1981, and not 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. It is STILL sensational...it is still a world beater. It's from an ex-policeman on the scene at the time. It doesn't need a new book about a Polish Jew, it stands up on it's own merits.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

In my opinion there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with questioning anything and everything in this world.

Now that's off my perfectly splendid chest, let me ask you one (and anyone else who cares to suggest an answer).

Assuming the only reason for promoting the marginalia in the first place was to big up the idea that Swanson had succeeded where nobody else had in identifying by name the big one - Jack the Ripper himself - why would anyone with half a brain not have pencilled in the words:

'Kosminski was the murderer', if the scribe was not Swanson himself?

What on earth was there to lose?

For a hap'orth of tar the ship was lost...

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

Under the assumption you make, nope, nothing to lose at all. However, if that be the reason, why wait 6 years to big up Swanson's grandfather's sensational revealing of the name? It's STILL a sensation and real kudos to the family name..1982-1986 isn't it?

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

If Martin Fido's book prompted Swanson to contact the DT, then what prompted him in 1981, and not 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

What prompted him in 1981 was that that was when the annotations were discovered following the death of his aunt late the previous year. As I understand it, he was paid a fee by the News of the World for the right to publish the document, which is why he didn't approach any other newspapers for some time. When he finally did, he asked the News of the World for its permission.

I think it does need to be remembered that a journalist from the News of the World had seen the annotations and was aware of their contents. If the suggestion is that a sensational detail was later added before arranging for them to be published by another newspaper, the person doing that would be taking an incredible risk. At any rate, I find it incredible.

[jason_c]

"the reason we have been given for the original newspaper's refusal to print the story is a "change of ownership" at that newspaper. Hang on a minute I say... if in 1987 it was regarded as such an important and all-revealing document in 1987, then what changed it from the presentation in 1981, when it was turned down? The sensation of the man NAMED as "Jack the Ripper" cannot change in 6 years... it was still THE greatest murder mystery yet unsolved in history... and the NOTW had, and has, a reputation as a sensationalist newspaper. A sensationalist newspaper NOT printing the "true" name of Jack the Ripper? Just because of an ownership change in 1981? Err..."

Phil,
Different editors have different priorities. What may be news to one is a non story to another. JtR stories tend to be a mixture of titillation and mystery. The "revelations" were not earth shattering, especially as the book contained no real proof. IF the book had contained the name of Prince Eddy then it would have been a great story.

Its not like David Essex was caught in a sex scandal, now that would have been real news in 1981.