Is the marginalia genuine?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

Sorry if I offended you; that wasn't my intention....

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 Bunny,

No offence taken, I assure you.

Re. my "expressing strong reservations".. actually no, your interpretation and following comment is incorrect... I didn't do that. I was merely pointing out to Steven that others may have, or may not have their own reservations, if any, under the points I made. No offence meant, in return, I can assure you.
I also noted the point of quantity etc, re. any conclusion formed.

For my own part, I merely said I choose not to vote (without anyone deducing, or even assuming, why I didn't choose to vote).

No need for anyone to read anything into anything. I'm sure there are those on these boards who will read something out of nothing given the chance of an argument or discussion, or just attempt to wind people up for the "fun" of it.
On this occasion, I'm not playing. Just a bystander, watching, making a spectactor's observation, which, in all it's genuine innocence, is allowed.


kindly

Phil

[Phil H]

But interventions themselves are surely statements?

Silence on the other hand retains an enigmatic quality.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Note my word "observation".
Note your word "interventions".


kindly

Phil

[Phil H]

But to make an observation you have to "intervene" - in that to make the observation you take part in the dialogue.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Have a nice afternoon.

kindly

Phil

[Steven Russell]

I did wonder about whether to make the poll open or private and did consider that some potential voters might be put off by the fact that the voters' identities would be shown. I decided on an open poll, reasoning that those who voted would not mind having their views known and, conversely, anyone not wishing their views to be known could simply choose not to vote. Also, as has been noted, I qualified the question with "In my opinion" and "most likely".

I think I may have blundered with the name of the thread though since marginalia is plural isn't it?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?

[Colin Roberts]

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?

As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.

~~~

I tend to believe that the margin and end-paper notes were written by Swanson.

But, I am occasionally offended by the dogged insistence of some (exclusive of Chris) that the notes are of genuine provenance, simply because ... one says so; so much so, that in these instances, I am somewhat driven to assume the position that the notes are not of genuine provenance.

[Chris]

Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?

Because Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, said "I have in my possession authentic printed & written information that names the "suspect," states why he was not brought to justice, and what eventually happened to him." To my mind this means there can be no question of the endpaper annotations (or the final sentence naming Kosminski) having been added after 1981.

For more details of the correspondence, see this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5899

[Chris]

As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.

Yes - I hadn't forgotten that suggestion, but I do think it is very unlikely, as are the "lucky guess" possibility, and the independent pre-Fido research possibility.

I suppose what I'm asking is on what basis people can say the marginalia are "most likely" to be either wholly or partly faked.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine.

I assume they have to contend that it is a forgery/fake because if it were genuine it would rule out their pet theory.

So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).

I have seen NO evidence that would make me believe there was even a hint of forgery about the marginalia - quite the contrary as the material published in a recent thread illustrates.

Phil

[Steven Russell]

Completely agree, Phil. But you can still believe that the notes are genuine and cling on to a pet theory. All you have to do is interpret the notes as Swanson merely expanding on Anderson's comments without fully endorsing them (not unreasonable), then decide Anderson is either lying or confused. Presto! The notes and your theory both emerge unscathed.

Rather disappointed at the number of votes cast so far compared to the number of views. Come on, Casebookers! All it takes is a click!

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Colin Roberts]

So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).

Hear ye!

Hear ye!

Henceforth, the record shall state that anyone that does not see the world, from precisely the same perspective as that of 'Phil H' is of 'closed mind'.

[Dr. John Watson]

Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.

I'd describe them as "most likely genuine," but two things have always bothered me. First, Swanson obviously intended his notes to be read by someone, else why initial the entries to insure they could properly be attributed to him? People don't normally sign or initial diary entries, for instance, or notes to themselves. Which begs the question, who was Swanson writing for? Who was his intended audience? And if he was hoping to add to the general knowledge of the subject, why hide the notes in the margins and blank pages of someone else's autobiography, presumably destined to gather dust among similar texts in a bookcase somewhere?

Curious John