Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Hi Adam

I look forward to seeing that but one thing you will have to explain is why the News of the World newspaper which specialised in sex and murder and scandals couldn't be bothered to print the name of the most famous unknown serial killer in the world after they'd paid for the information.

Hi Trevor

The abbreviation of News of the World should be NOTW not NOW.

But that's given me an idea for the name for the boy band I'm putting together.

THE NOW (!) America here we come.

[John Bennett]

Oh what a crock. The validity has been "seriously questioned" for years. It is hardly a recent occurrence.

Too true. Questions regarding the different pencils, Swanson's mental condition at the time etc. are old hat.

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh what a crock. The validity has been "seriously questioned" for years. It is hardly a recent occurrence.

Thank-you, Ally. That is true.

[Monty]

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?

Nice to see you've done your homework Trevor.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Going Against Procedure

I think, if I was going to generate a forgery I'd come up with something rather more credible than the Marginalia's Seaside Home identification. The story is so odd, so quirky that, in my view, it is probably what it purports to be, a hand-written note by DSS. Flawed memory, mischievous fiction, true account of an improbable occurence? Why not? The identification, if it occurred, didn't follow established procedure. So what? That doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Police officers do sometimes do the wrong thing for what they believe to be the right reason. The Marginalia claim that the police took the suspect back to London and left him at his brother's house where he was watched by day and night.
If you had an identification which wouldn't stand up in court, what would you do with your suspect? Give up, or give him enough rope and hope that he hangs himself? The best chance of the killer being apprehended and hanged was to catch him in the act.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Anderson's meanings

I think, if I was going to generate a forgery I'd come up with something rather more credible than the Marginalia's Seaside Home identification. The story is so odd, so quirky that, in my view, it is probably what it purports to be, a hand-written note by DSS. Flawed memory, mischievous fiction, true account of an improbable occurence? Why not? The identification, if it occurred, didn't follow established procedure. So what? That doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen. Police officers do sometimes do the wrong thing for what they believe to be the right reason. The Marginalia claim that the police took the suspect back to London and left him at his brother's house where he was watched by day and night.
If you had an identification which wouldn't stand up in court, what would you do with your suspect? Give up, or give him enough rope and hope that he hangs himself? The best chance of the killer being apprehended and hanged was to catch him in the act.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

I have suggested the following before, which entails some of your suggestions.
Can you please tell me why the following is not equally obvious or plausible?

The marginalia is NOT the personal views of Donald Swanson, but Swanson, when reading ANDERSONS words, fills in the details of Anderson's story as Swanson remembered being TOLD it.

In other words, whilst Swanson read the piece, he expands on the lack of detail of Andersons own story. "What Anderson said was...." "how it was regailed to me was...".

It is entirely obvious to me at least that if Swanson HIMSELF took part in any said ID parade, the details currently lacking would have been included. Far more logical is Swanson remembering parts of a story told to him, by Anderson.
Such covert operations in secret would, I suggest, have been done by Special Branch. And Anderson hinself worked and was connected in undercover operations,
"The traditions of my old department" means that SB never tell.

If Anderson himself was INVOLVED in the ID parade he would have told the world and said "I" did this, "I" did that. He doesnt. And NEITHER does SWANSON.

SB never name names. Anderson didnt. I also believe SB's involvement may be explained in Berner St keeping a watching brief. Words relayed via informers led to suspicion of Stride's killer being a Polirh Jew connected to the Club, and the story of the ID is an Anderson Red Herring, hence the details being Wrong (Anderson) and wrong, misremembered and or fudged (Swanson writing from what he was told).

Andersons embellishment that Jack was known all along and incarcerated fojows other examples of the police, under Anderson were imperious. All reputations intact, with Anderson the guiding hero.

How can the idea of Swanson filling in another persons story be shown to be the most plausible? Simple.

READ THE OTHER MARGINALIA THROUGHOUT THE BOOK AND SEE IF IT HAS BEEN DONE RELATING TO ALL THE OTHER STORIES ANDERSON WROTE THAT SWANSON MARGINALISED.

Swanson cannot possibly be seen to have been involved in ALL of Andersons operations- ipso facto- Swanson ir regailing from memory of what he was told of events.
Its Andersons book of Andersons reminisentces that Swanson is elaborating upon. That does NOT mean Swanson was involved.

Compare the style of the other additions throughout the book.

To me, it is why the problem of Anderson NOT being a liar is STRESSED so greatly. Because if this story is ALL ANDERSONS, MARGINALIA INCLUDED, then the added back up of SWANSONS INVOLVEMENT disappears. Exit stage left the policeman who's integrity hasnt been questioned by anyone- EXCEPT through this marginalia.
Take his involvement in the operation away- hey presto- we are left with Andersons word that has b3n shown on MANY occasions to be questionable, in one way or another.

Thats why in 1987-88 Anderson had to be seen to be truthful.
Why make such a hew and cry to show it so clearly if there isnt a good reason? simple. The details of the Anderson story if ONLY from him gives the whole story LESS credulity. With Swanson s3mingly promoted to involvement, it becomes more solid.

Jim Swanson may or may not have known if Donald Swanson was involved in tìs ID parade story. That doesmt matter. What matters is that is how Jlm Swanson READ it.
And utterly believed in it too. Hence the honour of promoting his ancestor to be THE one who 'knew'.

Thats where I bring in Abbeiline's words.
"he only THOUGHT he knew". The story had done the rounds.
And Swanson regailed in more detail that very story- told by Anderson.

Thats why Andersons trvhfulness is so important. Doubt it and the whole story ebbs away into the realms of another Anderson fairytale.

If this IS the real truth, and it WAS/IS known- would it ever be admitted and end this hullaballoo once and for all?

If nobody KNOWS- its about time it should be considered by ALL sides without fear nor favour.

Plausible? I think so.

So Id like to see ALL the Swanson additions in the book.


Best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi Adam

I look forward to seeing that but one thing you will have to explain is why the News of the World newspaper which specialised in sex and murder and scandals couldn't be bothered to print the name of the most famous unknown serial killer in the world after they'd paid for the information.

Hi Trevor

The abbreviation of News of the World should be NOTW not NOW.

But that's given me an idea for the name for the boy band I'm putting together.

THE NOW (!) America here we come.

Hello Stephen,
As a matter of interest, why does this 'have' to be explained? More importantly, how would you propose explaining it? The journalist who wrote the article is dead, the newspaper itself has ceased publication, and the story was bought and the decision not to publish was made over thirty years ago. The News of the World inspected the material, bought the story, and returned the rights to Jim Swanson. All of which is established fact. Why do we need to know why they didn't use the story?

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin,

I have suggested the following before, which entails some of your suggestions.
Can you please tell me why the following is not equally obvious or plausible?

The marginalia is NOT the personal views of Donald Swanson, but Swanson, when reading ANDERSONS words, fills in the details of Anderson's story as Swanson remembered being TOLD it.

In other words, whilst Swanson read the piece, he expands on the lack of detail of Andersons own story. "What Anderson said was...." "how it was regailed to me was...".

It's plausible, but these are words which DSS (assuming that it was him) could have written, but chose not to.

What he did write, inter alia was:

'Kosminski was the suspect'.

If he is simply recording what he was told by Anderson, why not remove all doubt by the addition of four more words:

'My understanding is that Kosminski was the suspect' ?

Regards, Bridewell

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

The marginalia is written in shortened form- indicating paraphrasing.
Another reason why the ENTIRE set of marginalha throughout the book should be looked at to compare with.
Surely much would be answered.

Best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

The Entirety

Hello Colin,

The marginalia is written in shortened form- indicating paraphrasing.
Another reason why the ENTIRE set of marginalha throughout the book should be looked at to compare with.
Surely much would be answered.

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

I agree,

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin, Phil

It would be an interesting exercise, I agree. Perhaps one of those gents who've handled the volume could kindly advise us of the nature of any other marginalia noted therein?

Thanks

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hi Colin, Phil

It would be an interesting exercise, I agree. Perhaps one of those gents who've handled the volume could kindly advise us of the nature of any other marginalia noted therein?

Thanks

Dave

Hello Dave, Colin.

I entirely agree, and hope a comprehensive presentation could be made.
This may, just may, help tremendously the understanding behind the meaning of this "sacred cow" of Ripperlogy. All "sides" would then be able, perhaps, to find common unity on the subject of these notations?

Would it be so hard to photocopy said book of marked pages, and reprinted in a "magazine" special? Perhaps in time for the 125th Anniversary?
Perhaps Mr Swanson would have no objections to such an idea- as it keeps family integrity in tact, the intentions being honourable, and would be a very helpful and generous gesture.
Something for Adam to consider, perhaps?

Just a thought.

Best wishes

Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

All in hand, Phil.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

That really was a good answer!
Many thanks Adam, and I wish you all good fortune in your efforts to bring this perhaps important move to fruition.

Best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

Hi Colin, Phil

It would be an interesting exercise, I agree. Perhaps one of those gents who've handled the volume could kindly advise us of the nature of any other marginalia noted therein?

Thanks

Dave

It appears that Swanson was a compulsive scribbler. I stand to be corrected, but I think Paul Begg has a book or two (or seen a book or two) formerly owned by Swanson with plenty of Marginalia in them.

Indeed there are lots of other scribblings in his copy of TLSOMOL. I can't recall them off hand, as my encounter with it was more to do with the matter in hand.