Is the marginalia genuine?

[Steven Russell]

I have been quite surprised recently to see that several Casebook members are doubtful about the marginalia and endpaper notes and thought it would be interesting to post a poll. By "genuine", I mean written by D.S. Swanson himself.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil H]

100% genuine in my view.

Possibly written in two separate "phases" but both by D S Swanson himself (this reflects SPE's perception of the use of two different writing instruments).

My only question relates to whether:

a) DSS expanded on Anderson's words, making explicit things that his old boss had left unsaid. This assumes that all the knowledge/facts involved were already (i.e. previously) known to DSS from his involvement in the case; or

b) the words repeat things that DSS had not previously known but which were told him by Anderson possibly when DSS asked him what he meant. This would explain the apparent vagueness and mismatch with what is known of contemporary procedures which some have noted in the marginalia. It might also explain why he states the suspects name in the way he does.

Those considerations apart I have absolutely no doubt that the marginalia are authentic.

Phil

[Magpie]

I think they are genuine, although I think there's room to argue that Swanson's intention in writing them was other than what is generally assumed.

[Chris]

Given the description of the annotations in Jim Swanson's letter to the News of the World in 1981, I find it very hard to understand how it can be argued that they are not wholly genuine.

Unless it's going to be claimed that the 1981 letter is itself a fake, that letter shows that the annotations then included not only the suspect's name, but also "why he was not brought to justice, and what eventually happened to him." In that case there can be no question of the endpaper annotations having been concocted after Martin Fido's discoveries in 1987.

But in 1981 no one knew that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house, or that he had been sent to Colney Hatch. Are those meant to have been lucky guesses on the faker's part, or is he supposed to have secretly carried out his own ground-breaking Ripper research years before Fido's discoveries?

[Abby Normal]

I have been quite surprised recently to see that several Casebook members are doubtful about the marginalia and endpaper notes and thought it would be interesting to post a poll. By "genuine", I mean written by D.S. Swanson himself.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Genuine. And since Swanson seems to make the point that "and he knew he was identified" that he also beleives AK is a strong suspect (but probably without the conviction that Anderson had about his guilt).

[Tom_Wescott]

Genuine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Thanks, all. While we still have only a small sample group, the view that "The jury is still out" is not going well. Chris's argument seems extremely persuasive.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steven,

You will take note that because this is a named, open vote, some may find that against their views on privacy of meaning, should they have wished to vote.

There will also be those who will "deduce" and conclude by those not choosing to vote as well... which has been done in the past. (guess what, I choose not to vote.. deduce nothing from it)

So any conclusion you come to with this must be tempered by the fact that perhaps 150 users do not wish to or don't vote. That doesn't mean they are for or against.

Whatever "jury" is "in nor out", it is not the answer as the majority or sizeable amount of users are not voting. It can be argued that it isn't an indication either, depending on what criteria in quantity of votes needed you set.

kindly

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Curate's egg.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stephen,

Indeed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate%27s_egg

You note the final comment from Punch 1992?..LOL

Hope you are well?

kindly

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Stephen,

Indeed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate%27s_egg

You note the final comment from Punch 1992?..LOL

Thanks Phil

Ain't Wikipedia marvellous? Thanks for the 1992 version as I hadn't seen that before. I imagine that several people think like I do on this one but they are mindful of libel laws. There's no question that the main body of the marginalia is genuine but it seems to me that the later addition naming 'Kosminski' which I've read is writen in a spidery hand with apparently a different pencil could well have been penned by persons unknown but obviously this is not a popular opinion.

Stephen

ps I'm fine and hope you are too.

[Archaic]

Open vs. Private Poll

Hi everyone.

Steven, I don't mind this being an open poll.
I think you phrased the question we are voting on in an appropriately non-confrontational way: "In my opinion, the Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes are most likely -".

We're not voting on some inflexible or absolute statement, such as "I say the marginalia absolutely is/is not genuine!"

We're just voting our personal opinions based upon our own perceived degree of likelihood. Many people are willing to voice their personal opinion about the marginalia publicly on the message boards; I'm not sure why they would hesitate to do so here.

Anyway, I voted that it's most likely to be genuine.

Phil, if you're uncomfortable with this open poll, maybe you could start another one that's private? It would be interesting to see if there is any appreciable difference in results between the two.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

There's no question that the main body of the marginalia is genuine but it seems to me that the later addition naming 'Kosminski' which I've read is writen in a spidery hand with apparently a different pencil could well have been penned by persons unknown but obviously this is not a popular opinion.

Just to clarify, the difference in colour and the slight differences in handwriting are between (1) the seven line comment at the bottom of p. 138 and (2) all the other Ripper-related annotations, including the seven lines in the margin of p. 138 and the fourteen lines on the endpaper.

These different groups are delineated in Rob House's illustration here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=100993&postcount=88

and in the subsequent posts on that thread are some photos in which the handwriting can be seen fairly clearly.

My question still has to be how a pre-1981 faker could have known that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house and was sent to Colney Hatch. No one knew that before Martin Fido's discoveries in 1987, as far as I'm aware.

By the way, I really don't think libel/slander is a consideration in any case, because even at its most extreme the innuendo has never hinted that any person now living could have faked these annotations.

[Phil Carter]

Phil, if you're uncomfortable with this open poll, maybe you could start another one that's private? It would be interesting to see if there is any appreciable difference in results between the two.

Hello Archaic,

I said, don't deduce...someone had to...

I'm not uncomfortable with anything.. I CHOOSE not to vote...simple. If YOU wish to start another poll, as it would be so interesting, according to you, then YOU can do so.
By the way, I won't vote in that either!!! I choose not to.

So nobody can read anything into that either!..

Hello Stephen,

Not too bad thanks"

kindly

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi Phil.

Sorry if I offended you; that wasn't my intention. Actually, I really didn't think anything about what your opinion might be. I haven't thought anything about anybody's personal opinion. It didn't even occur to me to do so. Personally, I'm not nearly so interested in the Marginalia as others seem to be, and I think it's a shame that it has become so divisive an issue.

But you did express strong reservations about this particular poll being "open" rather than private, and suggested that some members who might wish to vote might avoid doing so due to the lack of privacy, and that's what I was responding to when I addressed you and suggested a private poll could be added.

Hello Steven,

You will take note that because this is a named, open vote, some may find that against their views on privacy of meaning, should they have wished to vote.

There will also be those who will "deduce" and conclude by those not choosing to vote as well... which has been done in the past. (guess what, I choose not to vote.. deduce nothing from it)

So any conclusion you come to with this must be tempered by the fact that perhaps 150 users do not wish to or don't vote. That doesn't mean they are for or against.

Whatever "jury" is "in nor out", it is not the answer as the majority or sizeable amount of users are not voting. It can be argued that it isn't an indication either, depending on what criteria in quantity of votes needed you set.

kindly

Phil

I simply thought you might prefer to start a private poll, in which case the results could be compared with the results of this poll to see if the either have any enhanced degree of participation. But if you don't wish to start a private poll, that's fine by me. I have no interest in starting one, because this poll suits me fine. Of course all of the polls on Casebook have a very large margin of error and uncertainty based upon numerous factors. They're certainly not what one could call "scientific" polls by any stretch of the imagination- I'm sure we can all agree on that.

But you do know, don't you, that saying "Don't deduce" twice in a row is a bit like saying ''Don't think about the large white bear in the corner of the room..." As the famous psychology experiment showed, it tends to make people think about it.

(Just kidding. )

On this and every subject, everybody's welcome to form their own opinion, and to share it or not as they see fit.

Best regards,
Archaic