Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, he was quite happy for the book to be examined and filmed in late 2010 for the Defintive Story Documentary. And happy to be interviewed too.

Perhaps it has been all the aggro that has resulted since that has made him change his mind.

Yes that was before its authenticity and the content of the marginalia was seriously questioned !

Its funny when you raise vaild arguments how it makes people think?

[John Bennett]

Nevil wont now allow anyone to examine the book or the marginalia .

Where is the transparency what are people afraid of.?

Well, he was quite happy for the book to be examined and filmed in late 2010 for the Defintive Story Documentary. And happy to be interviewed too.

Perhaps it has been all the aggro that has resulted since that has made him change his mind.

[Chris]

Of course I can see your point!
I was hoping that the two or three points I made may have been seen, in the interest of open sight.

What can I say? I understand what you were suggesting, but I think it is simply wrong. To name someone you have to specify a name.

Anyway, I think that as Adam has promised us a detailed article which will answer the questions that have been raised, the best thing will be to suspend the discussion here for a while and wait and see what the article says.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Of course I can see your point!
I was hoping that the two or three points I made may have been seen, in the interest of open sight.

Nothing personal meant in any way to you Chris or anyone else for that matter, (I emphasise that) but perhaps a little less concentration on what comes over as personal headhunt around here by some might go a long way. Just an observation.
Life is too short.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Now, how did Trevor put it?

As yes.....

.....The silence is deafening.

Monty

[Monty]

Is it thats what he told me only days ago !

No idea what that was, however at a guess you are stating Nevil is not allowing anyone to view the book or marginalia.

That is not true Trevor.

Monty

[Monty]

All,

In an effort to put an end to these circular arguments, I'm happy to announce that a detailed article on the history of the Swanson Marginalia will be published in Ripperologist magazine, written by myself with the full co-operation of the Swanson family. The article will appear before the York conference.

Although I'm presently unable to say any more than that, rest assured the questions raised will be answered in full.

Best wishes
Adam

Good news Adam, and as Trevor will be there it will benefit him also.

Monty

[AdamNeilWood]

Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist magazine

All,

In an effort to put an end to these circular arguments, I'm happy to announce that a detailed article on the history of the Swanson Marginalia will be published in Ripperologist magazine, written by myself with the full co-operation of the Swanson family. The article will appear before the York conference.

Although I'm presently unable to say any more than that, rest assured the questions raised will be answered in full.

Best wishes
Adam

[Trevor Marriott]

Well thats untrue, isnt it?

Monty

Is it thats what he told me only days ago !

[Monty]

Nevil wont now allow anyone to examine the book or the marginalia .

Well thats untrue, isnt it?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
It is not and never has been denied that the marginalia tells a story which is difficult to believe. That has been recognised by everybody since 1987. It is the reason why people have always questioned it and questioned Anderson too. You're not asking any questions that haven't been asked a thousand times. However, the marginalia is and has been accepted as authentic, and if the marginalia is authentic then the story it tells is what Swanson believed to be true, and whether or not you like what the source is telling you, whether or not you understand it, it reflects what the source actually believed happened.

Now, if you are able to prove that the marginalia isn't genuine, and you haven't yet produced any evidence to the effect, then the whole thing goes out of the window. But if the marginalia is authentic then it reflects what Swanson thought.

When you weigh up all the facts and take everything into account the balance of probabilty suggests there is something wrong with it in part or in whole.

You cannot simply dismiss the content by suggesting what he wrote he belived to have been true, or what he thought. Either it was true or it wasnt !

Publish the handwriting experts statement in full lets see which way the cards are stacked. You should know that in most cases where expert testimony is given there is always going to be an expert called for the other side to put a case for the other side.

I will go so far as to say I would personally contribute to the cost of a re examniation of the marginlia by a totally highly respected independent expert.

So who has copies of the report, the met say they have no knowldege of such a report

The Crime Museum acknowledge they had one but that is now missing and they have no plans to obtain a copy despite copies can be obtained from The Forensic Science Services who Dr Davies worked for. They wont release it without permission from the met who say they have no knowledge of such a report.
Round we go in circles !

Nevil Swanson has a copy but wont allow anyone to look at it or to have a copy saying he doesnt have the authority to do so.

Nevil wont now allow anyone to examine the book or the marginalia .

Where is the transparency what are people afraid of.?

[PaulB]

He wouldnt he was giving his opinion in 1987 as to why the NOW never printed an article based on the marginalia as it was in 1987 when he had sight of it.

You keep asking me questions let me ask you one. How can you explain the fact that the content of the marginalia with regards to the ID procedure went against all known police protocol and procedures, and the fact that there is no other corroboration to this (Anderson only mentions some for or an an ID in part).

It could not have happened in the way it is described in the marginalia, the police were looking to get a positive ID on a serial killer they would not have jepordised their case by carrying out an ID procedure in this way. It would have been doomed even before the witness made the ID and then said he wansnt going to give evidence.

Every single part of this marginalia is wrong, they took him with his hands tied behind his back thats unlawful without an arrest. No records of an arrest,(forget.lost stolen or destroyed records) no one in later years ever mentions such an incident that suggests there was no records in the first place to go missing.

Then they bring him back after being identified and drop him off back to his brothers house, if he went tied up did they bring him back tied up ? If he had been taken from workhouse/asylum they would have taken him back there.

Do you think for one minute that if they knew they had in their grasp a killer they would release him back into an envirionment where he was likley to be able to kill again. Its unreal to me the whole story looks to be a total fabrication and that is part of why the question of who wrote the marginaila in total or part and when is important to discover.

Trevor,
It is not and never has been denied that the marginalia tells a story which is difficult to believe. That has been recognised by everybody since 1987. It is the reason why people have always questioned it and questioned Anderson too. You're not asking any questions that haven't been asked a thousand times. However, the marginalia is and has been accepted as authentic, and if the marginalia is authentic then the story it tells is what Swanson believed to be true, and whether or not you like what the source is telling you, whether or not you understand it, it reflects what the source actually believed happened.

Now, if you are able to prove that the marginalia isn't genuine, and you haven't yet produced any evidence to the effect, then the whole thing goes out of the window. But if the marginalia is authentic then it reflects what Swanson thought.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, how would Charles Nevin know what was or wasn't in the marginalia in 1981?

He wouldnt he was giving his opinion in 1987 as to why the NOW never printed an article based on the marginalia as it was in 1987 when he had sight of it.

You keep asking me questions let me ask you one. How can you explain the fact that the content of the marginalia with regards to the ID procedure went against all known police protocol and procedures, and the fact that there is no other corroboration to this (Anderson only mentions some for or an an ID in part).

It could not have happened in the way it is described in the marginalia, the police were looking to get a positive ID on a serial killer they would not have jepordised their case by carrying out an ID procedure in this way. It would have been doomed even before the witness made the ID and then said he wansnt going to give evidence.

Every single part of this marginalia is wrong, they took him with his hands tied behind his back thats unlawful without an arrest. No records of an arrest,(forget.lost stolen or destroyed records) no one in later years ever mentions such an incident that suggests there was no records in the first place to go missing.

Then they bring him back after being identified and drop him off back to his brothers house, if he went tied up did they bring him back tied up ? If he had been taken from workhouse/asylum they would have taken him back there.

Do you think for one minute that if they knew they had in their grasp a killer they would release him back into an envirionment where he was likley to be able to kill again. Its unreal to me the whole story looks to be a total fabrication and that is part of why the question of who wrote the marginaila in total or part and when is important to discover.

[Chris]

Phil

The whole point I am making is that if the book simply said the suspect was a Polish Jew, it wouldn't be naming him. It could only name him if his name was given.

[Phil Carter]

Helln Chris,

What is wrong with the following sentence-

'in a book that names the suspect as a Polish Jew'

Yes, the sentence is different from the original. Yet that sentence can read EITHER that the Polish Jew suspect is namED in the book, or the suspect is NAMED AS a Polish Jew.

In that light, if the meaning of the original sentence is the latter, it can, rightly or wrongly, be interpreted as such.

Because of the response, seemingly that the killer (not the name) wasnt a high profile figure, we do not actually KNOW with certainty that the name was in itself seen or named to the journalist.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Trevor's thoughts on the matter could be taken in a different light?

Merely a suggestion to keep all minds open- which I believe Trevor has done by saying 'you may well be right'.

Best wishes

Phil