There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The reluctance of the holders of the document to have it re-examined is either suspicious or it isn't. They either believe they have a genuine document and feel no need to re-prove that, or they have suspicions that it's a fake, and don't want to lose an important and famous work and the prestige that goes along with it.

There is another explanation: that they, along with the vast majority of the world, don't assign the importance to this that we do. Same might be true of the Swanson family. We're a small and rabid group, and it is dangerous to extrapolate our views onto the whole at large.

IMHO this is detracting from the attention that should have been paid to the documentary as a whole. It's a time when the community should be saying 'well done' to Mr. Bennett, Monty, Paul, Jeff and associated luminaries and giving a well deserved pat on the back to all concerned.

[Robert]

Phil, your "Boo" scared the hell out of me.

[Chris]

I thought it might be helpful if I started a thread on cliques and cartels in Ripperology, so that those who are interested in discussing that can do it somewhere other than on this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=162871

[mariab]

There is another explanation: that they, along with the vast majority of the world, don't assign the importance to this that we do. Same might be true of the Swanson family.

The MEPO Museum, the Swanson family, and Alan McCormick are very aware of the importance of the Swanson marginalia.

It's a time when the community should be saying 'well done' to Mr. Bennett, Monty, Paul, Jeff and associated luminaries and giving a well deserved pat on the back to all concerned.

We did that – in the Channel 5 documentary thread.

Robert wrote:
Phil, your "Boo" scared the hell out of me.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The MEPO Museum, the Swanson family, and Alan McCormick are very aware of the importance of the Swanson marginalia.

You've spoken to them ?

[mariab]

Not yet. :-)
At least the MEPO Museum and Alan McCormick appear to be aware of the importance of the Swanson marginalia.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Not yet. :-)
At least the MEPO Museum and Alan McCormick appear to be aware of the importance of the Swanson marginalia.

I doubt they feel it is of cosmic importance.

[mariab]

Agreed, but the question is rather, are the Swanson marginalia indeed of “cosmic“ interest to Ripperology? Unless one considers Kozminsky as a suspect.
Are they more of interest than, say, the Littlechild letter?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Agreed, but the question is rather, are the Swanson marginalia indeed of “cosmic“ interest to Ripperology? Unless one considers Kozminsky as a suspect.
Are they more of interest than, say, the Littlechild letter?

No, that's not the question. The question is why the MEPO and others don't jump when we say "jump".

And it is interesting that you mention the Littlechild letter. I think the two documents share equal provenance...i.e. short of seeing Swanson or Littlechild actually pen/type them, it's about as good as it gets.

[mariab]

The question is why the MEPO and others don't jump when we say "jump".

We can say “jump“ nicely, or use our oratory skills (NOT on the boards) to persuade them to jump. Sooner or later, it works. (At least it works in my field.)

And it is interesting that you mention the Littlechild letter. I think the two documents share equal provenance...i.e. short of seeing Swanson or Littlechild actually pen/type them, it's about as good as it gets.

Yes, I know. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say “equal provenance“, but “similar circumstances“. Pity that SPE isn't on the thread anymore. Although I assume that the similarity of the circumstances around these 2 documents has been discussed in older threads.

[sleekviper]

Could this possibly have been viewed in three different ways? Editor number one reads it and thinks, " Wow, the police knew the ripper, and decided to play judge, jury, and executioner by not alerting the public, and bringing this guy to trial. It sure is a good thing no one was cut to ribbons while taking his dishes after he ate with him still holding the knife. Wait, if they did this with him, how many other cases has someone skipped justice the way it was suppose to be? What in the world happens when they do this, and an innocent person is brought up on those charges? If this thing is fake, I would be cooked for what it may imply." He passes. Editor number two sees it and thinks, "Wow! The police knew the ripper!"
Years earlier, Swanson may have been sitting at home, reading the paper, and some reporter commenting on the ripper crimes once again states that police were fools, and he decides to write his thoughts in a book. He was solving crimes and protecting people for twenty years before this ripper rubbish, he will be horse tied and quartered if his family will remember him as a fool! If they run across his words, they will know who he thought it was, he is no fool! Thus, not thinking that his words could mean more than historical self preservation, for a crime that surely would fade out one day, he makes the notations. Just a thought.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

We can say “jump“ nicely, or use our oratory skills (NOT on the boards) to persuade them to jump. Sooner or later, it works. (At least it works in my field.)

Which is where I was trying to lead you, all Socratic like.

Yes, I know. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say “equal provenance“, but “similar circumstances“.

Yes, "equal provenance" is actually a nonsensical phrase and wrong of me to use. No argument here. At least with Swanson we have some handwriting to go by; Littlechild is obviously typed. And I am not trying to tear down Littlechild, needless to say.

[mariab]

Which is where I was trying to lead you, all Socratic like.

At least with Swanson we have some handwriting to go by; Littlechild is obviously typed. And I am not trying to tear down Littlechild, needless to say.

That Littlechild's typed is not a problem in the least, provenance-wise. What would be nice is if we knew ALL the details about the internal discussions which led to the Littlechild letter. By the way, after having read Roger J. Palmer's recent 3 part piece in the Examiner, I'm getting interested in Tumblety again.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

That Littlechild's typed is not a problem in the least, provenance-wise.

Not suggesting that it is, in any way shape or form. Only that with S&M (sic) we have handwriting as well for further verification.

[robhouse]

"One of my suggestions was that someone with an interest had a conversation with Swanson about it, borrowed his book, read his notations and added their own, but the McN spelling does indicate that whoever wrote the notation would have had more than just a passing fancy in the case and had done their research. "

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think here, and elsewhere, you seem to be suggesting the possibility that someone may have "innocently" added to Swanson's marginalia. When I say innocently, I mean, without the intention to deceive... without the intention to make it seem like it is in Swanson's handwriting etc.

I am at a loss as to see how this could possibly be, since the writing "Kosminski was the suspect" is written in the same pencil, the same handwriting, and in-line with the rest of the paragraph. I don't see how this sentence could have possibly been added on to the end of the paragraph without it having been done as a deliberate fraud. (Not that I am suggesting this was done of course.) But I just don't see how on earth it is possible it could have been added on innocently.

Rob