There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[jmenges]

P.S I know Jonathon is very busy with pressing family obligations, so I have no idea if a podcast is even possible. It was just an idea.

I'd be happy to interview him at his convenience if it could be arranged.

JM

[Monty]

Trevor,

You have nothing further to add then post on a subsequent 2 occassions.

Nevermind eh. So you are not willing to name the Kosminskites who wish the document would rather not be tested nor are you willing to provide the funding huh?

Nor are you willing to specify what tests you wish to be conducted and why?

Secrecy is a dispicable trait in Ripperology isn't it? And I'm the negative one.

I'll keep asking the uncomfortable questions also.

Monty

[Ally]

Thanks Jonathon and I do apologize for dragging your name in before it was ascertained if you could do it. It was not intended to put you on the spot.

[jmenges]

No worries!

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

You have nothing further to add then post on a subsequent 2 occassions.

Nevermind eh. So you are not willing to name the Kosminskites who wish the document would rather not be tested nor are you willing to provide the funding huh?

Nor are you willing to specify what tests you wish to be conducted and why?

Secrecy is a dispicable trait in Ripperology isn't it? And I'm the negative one.

I'll keep asking the uncomfortable questions also.

Monty

Nothing of what you ask is uncomfortable to me.

i dont need to name names they know who they are as do most of the regular casebook members.

As to funding a new examination i would gladly do that however as the police have it in their crime museum and it would appear are relying on it to be historically correct it is only write and proper that as they funded the original examination they should fund the re examination which Is a request I have made to the Commissioner and to date in 3 months i have had no definitive answer from him.

[Monty]

Trevor,

I don't understand, why won't you name names? Seeing as your for the truth, why not state the truth?

You feel the Met, funded by the public purse, should pay for the testing? Testing you are being ambiguous about.

Let me get this straight, you feel the tax payer should foot the bill? In this age of austerity Britain.

I think the Commissioner has better things to spend our money on, seeing as they are cutting Bobbies and services.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I don't understand, why won't you name names? Seeing as your for the truth, why not state the truth?

You feel the Met, funded by the public purse, should pay for the testing? Testing you are being ambiguous about.

Let me get this straight, you feel the tax payer should foot the bill? In this age of austerity Britain.

I think the Commissioner has better things to spend our money on, seeing as they are cutting Bobbies and services.

Monty

I dont understand why you keep trying to get posters to name names you tried it with Simon Wood now you are trying it with me if I didnt know better i would say you are deliberatley inciting people to name names so that the people concerned can complain and then get them banned for slandering them.

I cant also understand why no one answers my questions !!!!!!!!!!!!

You being an ex policeman should no what forensic test would be available

[robhouse]

I could submit: It's been claimed that in the 60 odd years your aunt owned the book, she never opened it. How do you know? How do you know no one else opened it?

If this is the type of questioning you are proposing to ask, then I would not particularly support this idea. Incidentally, Chris's point about your use of the word "question" I believe was that it implies cross-examination of a defendant. This sample question you have posted, in my opinion, supports that idea.

It is not surprising that the very first post in this thread contains a major error regarding one of the main arguments in support of the marginalia being questionable. In summary, I again ask? What are the points that argue in favor of the document being forged? The answer is... none. The only one I can think of is your contention that the line "Kosminski was the suspect" seems to be an odd choice of phrase, or clunky grammar. And have you not noticed other odd examples of grammar in the writing?What else is there? The pencils? Tell me about the pencils. The handwriting? What is there exactly to support all these repeated suggestions that the marginalia is questionable? Can someone summarize for me?

I do not think that there is any need at all to have the document re-examined, since there is absolutely zero evidence that supports the contention that it is a fraud. But I almost wish it was re-tested, just to get all of these rather childish insinuations to stop.
Rh

[Trevor Marriott]

If this is the type of questioning you are proposing to ask, then I would not particularly support this idea. Incidentally, Chris's point about your use of the word "question" I believe was that it implies cross-examination of a defendant. This sample question you have posted, in my opinion, supports that idea.

It is not surprising that the very first post in this thread contains a major error regarding one of the main arguments in support of the marginalia being questionable. In summary, I again ask? What are the points that argue in favor of the document being forged? The answer is... none. The only one I can think of is your contention that the line "Kosminski was the suspect" seems to be an odd choice of phrase, or clunky grammar. And have you not noticed other odd examples of grammar in the writing?What else is there? The pencils? Tell me about the pencils. The handwriting? What is there exactly to support all these repeated suggestions that the marginalia is questionable? Can someone summarize for me?

I do not think that there is any need at all to have the document re-examined, since there is absolutely zero evidence that supports the contention that it is a fraud. But I almost wish it was re-tested, just to get all of these rather childish insinuations to stop.
Rh

Of course if it were examined and was proved not to be genuine as far as the Kosminski entry is concerned does that mean you would withdraw your forthcoming book on Kosminski from publication

[Ally]

If this is the type of questioning you are proposing to ask, then I would not particularly support this idea. Incidentally, Chris's point about your use of the word "question" I believe was that it implies cross-examination of a defendant. This sample question you have posted, in my opinion, supports that idea.

Rh

I am sorry but the idea that only questions that support the marginalia should be allowed is ludicrous. When this was originally presented, it was claimed that the aunt had never opened the book.

How in the world can they possibly have known that? Did the aunt on her death bed present them with this book and say "hey, I have no idea what this book is as I've never opened it, but I want you to have it"?

Are no questions that question the authentication considered acceptable?

What questions then would you believe would be "appropriate"? Any question AGAINST the idea that it is authenticate can be seen as "cross examination". What's the point of having an interview, if yet again, all that can be asked is the party line?

[Monty]

Trevor,

You make outlandish claims that 'Kosminkites' are hindering the testing of the doc but will not name them out of fears of slander? There we have it folks.

And for the record, Simon is not banned. He left of his own accord. This after he twisted my words and protrayed me as being a member of a cartel. I requested he retracted that unfounded accusation, warning him I would complain if he did not. He refused and basically dared me to complain, so I didm I requested the offending post was removed (requested is stress, not demanded, that is foe adminto decide). Admin removed that post. They also removed others relating to that post and nothing else. Simon got the arse and threw his toys out of the pram.

He has no one to blame but himself. I personally wish he would reconsider his exile as he is a worthy contributor, but its his call.

As for no one answering your questions, well pot and kettle.

I'm very aware that there are numerous tests available, I merely trying to establish the ones you wish were to be undertaken. If you are unable or unwilling to answer then fine. Just don't expect others to answer yours.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

You make outlandish claims that 'Kosminkites' are hindering the testing of the doc but will not name them out of fears of slander? There we have it folks.

And for the record, Simon is not banned. He left of his own accord. This after he twisted my words and protrayed me as being a member of a cartel. I requested he retracted that unfounded accusation, warning him I would complain if he did not. He refused and basically dared me to complain, so I didm I requested the offending post was removed (requested is stress, not demanded, that is foe adminto decide). Admin removed that post. They also removed others relating to that post and nothing else. Simon got the arse and threw his toys out of the pram.

He has no one to blame but himself. I personally wish he would reconsider his exile as he is a worthy contributor, but its his call.

As for no one answering your questions, well pot and kettle.

I'm very aware that there are numerous tests available, I merely trying to establish the ones you wish were to be undertaken. If you are unable or unwilling to answer then fine. Just don't expect others to answer yours.

Monty

At no time have I gone on record as saying Kosminski ites are hindering the re examination those are your words. It is a fact that the handful of ripperologists who have had direct involvement with the marginalia all would seem to covet Kosminski as the killer .

Did you get a set of wooden spoons for christmas ?

[Monty]

No, I got a copy of your book.

It keeps the table straight.

Monty

[Chris]

It is a fact that the handful of ripperologists who have had direct involvement with the marginalia all would seem to covet Kosminski as the killer.

Of course it's not a fact. It's quite obviously untrue.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it's not a fact. It's quite obviously untrue.

Well you would say that I guess you and Monty are hoping to be invited to join the Cartel. It would be hard to for you two to join you would have to take a vow of silence.