There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Chris]

Phil

You can't have it both ways. Either you meant Fido's book or you didn't.

You say you didn't. Good. But that makes nonsense of your hypothesis, because there is no other "product" that would fit.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

I am happy with the hypothesis posting as is. You may choose to read into it whatever you will, however I will not comment on your choice for me either way. I make my own choices, as all are entitled to do.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

My answer to this thread is, "No, there is nothing wrong with the marginalia."

I totally agree, although I likewise agree with Stewart Evans that the document should have been examined closer and with less bias in the 1980's, and Stewart would have been negligent had he noticed disparancies in the handwriting and failed to make mention of it. However, the provenance is impeccable and the handwriting is not altogether so different that it isn't easily reconciled with a number of mundane explanations. At this point, anyone wishing to build an argument on the basis that the marginalia was faked or tampered with is just trying to be sensational.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

Ally,

My point is that given the amount of posts on this thread, it is incredible to me how little there is to support the contention that the marginalia is faked. There is not a single point I can think of that is valid. OK, perhaps a better analogy would be the people who think we didn't actually land on the moon. In any case the birther analogy was just to point out that just because something is repeated a thousand times, does not make it any more valid. Just because people here keep speculating and hypothesizing about the marginalia being a fake, does not alter the fact that no one has shown anything that actually supports such a hypothesis.

And by the way, you never answered my previous question.

RH

[Ally]

However, the provenance is impeccable and the handwriting is not altogether so different that it isn't easily reconciled with a number of mundane explanations.

Saying that the provenance is impeccable is to say that the family can guarantee with 100 percent certainty that no one ever wrote in the book or had access to write in the book other than Swanson. Considering that they failed to notice bright red lines being added to the book even after the relative importance of the document was known, no one can make the claim that the provenance is impeccable with any seriousness.

At this point, anyone wishing to build an argument on the basis that the marginalia was faked or tampered with is just trying to be sensational.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Any person attempting to deny there is an argument that the marginalia has clearly been tampered with is just trying to be blindly obstinate and argue against known facts.

[robhouse]

I totally agree, although I likewise agree with Stewart Evans that the document should have been examined closer and with less bias in the 1980's, and Stewart would have been negligent had he noticed disparancies in the handwriting and failed to make mention of it. However, the provenance is impeccable and the handwriting is not altogether so different that it isn't easily reconciled with a number of mundane explanations. At this point, anyone wishing to build an argument on the basis that the marginalia was faked or tampered with is just trying to be sensational.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thank you Tom. Very well said. It was very correct of Stewart to point out the two different colored pencils for example, since this clearly supports the contention that Swanson wrote the marginalia in 2 sittings. However, it is also an example of a "meme" that has been repeated incorrectly time and time again. It has been repeated on here several times that "the writing on the endpaper is done in a different pencil as the writing on page 138." This is clearly inaccurate, yet it is repeated over and over. Hence, misinformation is spread and passed back and forth as if it were fact.

RH

[Ally]

Ally,

And by the way, you never answered my previous question.

RH

Can you link me to it, or repeat it?

[robhouse]

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=162907&postcount=675

[mariab]

Any person attempting to deny there is an argument that the marginalia has clearly been tampered with is just trying to be blindly obstinate and argue against known facts.

By “tampered“, am I correct to assume that you're only addressing the thick red margin lines and the second pencil-underlining (over Swanson's original underlying) on p. 137? This tampering clearly occurred in the last couple years and, as unfortunate as it is, it does not change what we know about the origins of the document, as it does not change the fact that we already have photos of the document from 2000, previous to the tampering.
Hopefully you're not intending to label the minor discrepancies in the original handwriting of the marginalia (between p. 138 and the endnotes) as “tampering“!
Your reservations about the document possibly having circulated around in the last few years have nothing whatsoever to do with the document's authenticity. The evidence of the original handwriting proves that the document is genuine and (most probably) not tampered with originally. And that's what counts. Not the document's current whereabouts.

[caz]

Hello Caz, I know that you prefer to make jokes than actually read, but no where have I poured "scorn and ridicule on the very idea that the red lines could have been added in all innocence". I have said, several times that the red lines could absolutely have been added in all innocence. But what can no longer be claimed is that the Swanson family would have noticed anyone making additions to the legitimate marginalia.

What's delicious, is you berating others for their word choice, while picking up every single word, and not a jot of overall meaning.

More irony, Ally.

You quoted my whole sentence above your narrative, but then managed to lose the last eleven words, along with the entire meaning.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I wrote: '...the very idea that the red lines could have been added in all innocence to a book containing wholly authentic examples of Swanson's handwritten notes.'

I took the ‘in all innocence’ bit as understood, as only the anti-SM camp could possibly gain by adding them with malice aforethought, and I wasn’t expecting you to consider that very likely. But it seems you do consider it a possibility, which at least introduces the thinnest sliver of balance.

But the mere fact that you are still banging on for the umpteenth time about someone other than Swanson himself making ‘additions’, without paying much attention to the likelihood, only makes you sound desperate for this to have been the case. The thoughtless but innocent red lines merely provided you with another welcome opportunity to bang your personal ‘something wrong’ drum. There’s no more evidence for it now than there ever was. Yes, it’s theoretically possible that, as with the red lines, the Swanson family didn’t notice that someone a bit clueless had already ‘defecated’ on their precious bit of kit on a previous occasion, by faking the pretty ineffectual, less than mind-blowing words ‘Kosminski was the suspect’. But is it really likely, here in the real world?

I must say, it takes an oddly vivid imagination to see ripper world as a place bulging with opportunities to make a bent buck, and a cast of shady characters only too willing to give it a go. Surely there must be easier and more effective ways of making a living. The questioned book is not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘famous’, as one poster describes it. There is next to no ‘prestige’ attached to it, not even within ripper circles, and only a handful of theorists would consider it vitally ‘important’ in the great scheme of things. I don’t know why there is still talk of the marginalia naming ‘Jack the Ripper’. It is at best the name of the suspect Anderson wanted to believe was the brute, despite the fact that nobody ever saw the ripper in the act of murder. To all those who believe Anderson was full of it, it’s as unimportant as an historical footnote.

A faker hoping for fame or fortune might have done better to invest in lottery tickets than such an unintelligent bit of ‘tampering’. The idea of someone thinking deeply about the pros and cons of spelling the favoured suspect’s name with s or z, with an eye on some kind of jackpot if the right choice is made, strikes me as faintly ludicrous. Nothing wrong with exploring the scenario, nothing at all. But there’s equally nothing wrong with exploring how one might go about knitting fog. Nobody should try to stop anyone doing either, and I’m not sure how anyone but the site admin could succeed anyway. But how edifying is it?

Well thank you very much for proving that no intelligent examination of the facts will occur with you on the thread. We already knew it, but it's nice to have it right out there.

Does it matter who has been responsible in your view for making this impossible? If ‘we’ already knew it, why were you arguing that it was not only possible, but essential, to examine the facts on the message boards, and that anyone who suggested otherwise was into ‘collective muzzling’? It’s either possible or it isn’t. I’m flattered if you think I have the power to turn it from possible to impossible with a few choice words on this thread, but I can assure you I don’t.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

I am happy with the hypothesis posting as is. You may choose to read into it whatever you will, however I will not comment on your choice for me either way. I make my own choices, as all are entitled to do.

Well having read your earlier posts again, I see that you didn't actually deny the product you were referring to was Martin Fido's book, you just made various diversionary statements that could be taken that way.

Silly games.

[Ally]

Ah yep, totally blew past that one.

To answer: I have remarkably similar handwriting to my mother. Possibly because she taught me how to write, possibly because it's genetic, possibly because we both learned to write from the same style of school, possibly because I learned to forge her signature to play hooky from school. One of my cousins also has handwriting that is very similar, possibly for similar reasons of having learned from similar schools how to form our letters, (this is based on childhood memories I can't remember the last actual time I wrote something down since the invention of the computer).

Suppose a family relation is visiting Swanson or Swanson's daughter who the book passed to, comes across the book, and lo, there are the papers ( I mean we are also presuming Swanson might have had some additional papers lying around--if he had to look up Kosminski to add it on). Someone reads the book and the marginalia and becomes interested, reads through, finds the remainder of the papers possibly all in the same junk drawer with the same kind of pencil (remember there is nothing to say that it's the exact same pencil, just the same kind of pencil and don't most people buy pencils as a lot) that's been in that house for ages and uses it to add their inspiration.

So it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be done as a deliberate hoax if its not genuine. If, as has been used to explain the addition of the new pencil and the red lines, "it's a British thing", would they really have thought it was that big a deal to add something?

Which is not to say that it wasn't a hoax or wasn't genuine. Just that there is more than one possible solution in the world and just because one questions the "accepted version" doesn't mean one is saying the only other possibility is a deliberate fraud.

However, I will come down on saying in my opinion, it is probably either a hoax or genuine. The innocent addition is the LEAST likely scenario as far as I am concerned. I threw that out there as a possible, not a probable.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, as is your right. I am happy with what I have written, named no-one, accused no-one, slandered no-one, hinted at no-one, denied that any one person (including the gentleman who you named) was in my mind when I wrote the piece, but said it could have been anyone, for all I knew. (whom I referred to as A.N.Other)
Sorry if that isn't revealing enough for you. Sorry if I am not subject to suggestion.
I have no axe to grind here, against you nor anyone else. An example being that despite my known views against AK being JTR, I am looking forward immensely to Rob's book about to be published later this year. I look forward to learning new things about this man.

Well, that isn't quite true about no axe... I do believe that possibilities within this genre are certainly quelled because facts, facts and more facts can't be found to back them up 100%. I do believe that blinkers, for some, remain in place. But that is an opinion I have the right to give.

My doubt over the marginalia remains. As it has for many years now. Recent events concerning this document have failed to quell those doubts. That is also an opinion I have the right to give, whether some like it or not. I DO however believe I am flexible enough to be able to take all things considered into account, and change my views on things if I feel swayed enough by anything.

I will state this though. The "three-ringed circus" of Anderson, the Memoranda and the Marginalia all rely on each other to promote AK. Take Anderson out of the picture with his questionable bending of truths, or the Memoranda with the non-sensical additon of Ostrog, (or the complete lack of evidence that any of these intrepid three suspects were actually at the 5 known C5 victims murder locations), leaves the marginalia, which alone, does not convince me in any way that AK was JTR. It stands on one leg. And however much this gets discussed on the known facts as present (which is why I look forward to Rob House's awaited book on AK), that one leg is, in my opinion, in doubt. Please excuse me if I do not respond to any further comment, as I will be away for the rest of the evening. Have a nice evening, Chris!

best wishes

Phil

[Ally]

You quoted my whole sentence above your narrative, but then managed to lose the last eleven words, along with the entire meaning.

Ah I see. So it's okay for some people to take statements completely out of context and present that as the whole of the argument to be had, but it's very, very wrong to do the same thing to them in return. I understand completely.

But the mere fact that you are still banging on for the umpteenth time about someone other than Swanson himself making ‘additions’, without paying much attention to the likelihood, only makes you sound desperate for this to have been the case.

As opposed to say banging on for 7 years in dozens of posts each day about the validity of the Diary and the remote possibility that it was forged by someone other than the Barretts? It's always interesting how people find others obsessions to be desperate attempts, but their own obsessions are all good, jolly fun. So hard to know where to draw the line. Or is there a set list of things that are worthy subjects of debate and if so, could someone please provide me with a complete list?

For example, I dont' claim that you posting here shows that you are desperate to keep the provenance unquestioned, because I accept that people can enjoy debating something without it being a sign of their overall desperation. If you believe your continuing to debate is indicative of your desperation, I understand, but I disagree.

The thoughtless but innocent red lines merely provided you with another welcome opportunity to bang your personal ‘something wrong’ drum.

And? If one wants to turn your negatively slanted view around, one could purely say the new information opened up new questions as to how "untouched" the document was, which are legitimate questions. I really love how anyone who promotes an alternate point of view is constantly being denigrated as just some gleeful bitch stirring ****. I really do enjoy how everyone feels perfectly free to debate their own personal interests ad nauseum without it being seen as some sort of negative thing but god forbid one approaches a topic that it isn't approved for general discussion suddenly it's indicative of the debaters overall personal character.

Yes, it’s theoretically possible that, as with the red lines, the Swanson family didn’t notice that someone a bit clueless had already ‘defecated’ on their precious bit of kit on a previous occasion, by faking the pretty ineffectual, less than mind-blowing words ‘Kosminski was the suspect’.

I know you really like the fact that someone accidentally used the word "defecated" instead of defaced, and believe that this mistaken usage somehow typifies the quality of the debate, however I wasn't the person who used it, so your continually referencing it in your replies is unnecessary.

But is it really likely, here in the real world?

I don't know. Is it likely someone would fake an entire diary in an attempt to throw up a fake suspect? Is it likely that someone would fake an entire story involving faked deaths and australia and pocket watches? Is it likely that someone would fake a knife, or a genuine photo of Mary Kelly or hair from Eddowes? When you are talking about what is "likely" here in Ripper world, there's kind of a sliding scale, you must admit.

I don’t know why there is still talk of the marginalia naming ‘Jack the Ripper’. It is at best the name of the suspect Anderson wanted to believe was the brute, despite the fact that nobody ever saw the ripper in the act of murder. To all those who believe Anderson was full of it, it’s as unimportant as an historical footnote.

And yet, here you are still talking about it. So you tell me. If the marginalia is so unimportant in the great scheme of things, why would you even bother replying to this post at all?

A faker hoping for fame or fortune might have done better to invest in lottery tickets than such an unintelligent bit of ‘tampering’.

Or writing a Diary.

[Chris]

Phil

For the last time - what I really object to is the silly evasion and obfuscation. Obviously you were referring to Martin Fido's book. Why on earth couldn't you have the honesty to admit it, rather than pretending I was reading something into your post that wasn't there - or pointing out that you didn't use the word "book." That kind of thing is just a waste of time and an insult to the intelligence.