Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ally
    started a topic There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

    There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

    The purpose of this thread is to discuss purely the fact that there is something amiss with the Swanson Marginalia. Any post that can be summarized as "Davis and HO said it was, so it was" will be reported as being off-topic.

    This is for people who actually want to debate the topic and not get bogged down with sycophantic muppets who want to argue idiocy all day and not look at the actual facts. If I am the only one on this thread, so be it, probably better that way, but I want the facts out there, not buried in 30 pages of stupidity.

    So here are the facts as we know it, that might indicate the Marginalia needs closer scrutiny:

    1. The important marginalia, containing the name Kosminski, is written on an end paper and in a different pencil than can be found anywhere else in the book.

    2. This was never mentioned when the marginalia was first or subsequently reported on.

    3. One of the authors is now claiming they never really examined the marginalia before pronouncing it genuine.

    4. The original examination by the HO used photocopies, not the actual document so the differing pencils was completely eliminated. This despite it not being considered best practices to use photocopies to determine accuracy.

    What can be determined from these facts, is that at the very least, the Kosminski marginalia was written at a completely separate time than the rest of the marginalia in the book, which begs the question, Why? Why precisely would Swanson, if he was in fact the author of the marginalia, have felt compelled to go back and add it at some later date?

    If Swanson was not the author of the marginalia, then it seems likely that it would have to have been forged by either his daughter or grandson, something that no one involved is willing to speculate or consider.

    So either it's really Swanson's, written at some later date, which opens up its own can of worms, or it's not, which entirely invalidates the Marginalia.

    Either way, the idea that the Marginalia can just be accepted as irrefutable, is now entirely destroyed.

  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Because it said "from Fred."
    Let's leave aside that for all James Swanson knew 'Fred' could have been Anderson's middle name or nickname, because while it obviously says "from Fred" the question is: did James Swanson remember that?

    Yes, sure, he once saw it said "from Fred" but then many years later I suggest he forgot this detail and, being aware of the letter from Anderson, simply assumed that the inscription was by Anderson.

    If you think memory cannot play tricks on us then you will no doubt think it is a 'stretch'. But I believe it's fairly well established that memory DOES play tricks.

    No alternative explanation offered I see, to my satisfaction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Because it said "from Fred."

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    But it is a "stretch."
    As I've already said Scott, I don't think it is a 'stretch'.

    I mean, if James Swanson believed that the book was sent directly by Anderson to Donald Swanson under cover of a letter dated December 1905 then, knowing that there was an inscription in the book, why wouldn't he have assumed that the inscription was written by Anderson?

    What surely would be a 'stretch' is any other explanation for this. I noted that Simon didn't provide one, nor you. Fancy it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    But it is a "stretch."

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi David,

    That is a real stretch.

    But thank you for the thought.
    No problem Simon. I wouldn't really call it a 'stretch' though. I appreciate that you never make mistakes but normal people do. And they do it quite often.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    That is a real stretch.

    But thank you for the thought.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    How did they square their mistaken belief with the inscription "from Fred"?
    I'm not sure why you are asking me but, being as helpful as I can for you Simon, might I suggest that believing the book came from Robert Anderson and knowing that there was in inscription in the book (and being normal people, rather than true crime obsessives like ourselves) they simply managed to convince themselves in their mind that the wording was "from Robert"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    How did they square their mistaken belief with the inscription "from Fred"?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    It's interesting that both James and Nevill Swanson have promoted the false notion that TLSOMOL was a gift to their grandfather/great-grandfather from Sir Robert Anderson.
    But if they both mistakenly thought that the book was the enclosure to the 1905 letter then it's not really that 'interesting' is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi David,

    Yes, the 1905 letter is the letter that was there, wasn't there, and then, as if by magic, was there again.

    It's interesting that both James and Nevill Swanson have promoted the false notion that TLSOMOL was a gift to their grandfather/great-grandfather from Sir Robert Anderson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnTy3yfzH4o

    Start at 20.58.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Isn't the likely answer to this 'mystery' set out in 'Red Lines and Purple Pencil: A History of the Swanson Marginalia' by Adam Wood and Keith Skinner (Ripperologist 128)?

    The copy of James Swanson's 'Lighter Side of My Official Life' contains within it a letter glued onto the first page, being a letter from Robert Anderson to Donald Swanson dated Christmas Day of 1905 referring to 'acceptance of the accompanying book'.

    While that accompanying book could not have been 'Lighter Side', the authors of the article say: "This would seem to indicate that the letter had been placed with the book by the time Charles Sandell visited Jim in early 1981, and that the date '1905' had become entrenched in Jim's mind".

    At the very least, one can't begin to answer your question without this vital piece of information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    In a 15th April 1981 memo discovered together with a typewritten draft of his News of the World article, Charles Sandell wrote—

    "Before he died in 1924 Detective Supt. Donald Swanson of Scotland Yard wrote details of the Ripper investigation and his views (about 200 words) in the back of a book written by Sir Robert Anderson, former head of C.I.D. at Scotland Yard."

    Charles Sandell also wrote in the memo—

    “I have twice visited Mr. Swanson and I am convinced of his authenticity.”

    In the article itself, Charles Sandell quoted James Swanson—

    “The book is called ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’ and was published in 1905. As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in various cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book.”

    From this, it is not unreasonable to deduce that, during one of Charles Sandell's visits, he was shown a copy of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life,' published in 1905 and signed by Sir Robert Anderson.

    But we know that Sir Robert Anderson's book was published in 1910; also that Swanson's copy was a gift, inscribed "from Fred."

    So, what book was Charles Sandell shown?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Last edited by Simon Wood; 02-05-2017, 02:42 PM. Reason: spolling mistook

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Pierre,

    Seaside Homes, not necessarily for policemen.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Good, thanks Simon.

    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Pierre,

    Seaside Homes, not necessarily for policemen.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X