New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Lechmere]

Sorry duPlicates post

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

"The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism."

"Only to those like you - or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott - who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material."

Firstly, "those like you" is not a very nice thing to say to anyone... and you are one who has been on these boards long enough to know that such personal comments are unworthy of you.. like you have told others in the past. Therefore.. a reminder to look in the mirror.

"or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott".. really does speak volumes for much of the respect you actually have for people. You insult their name KNOWING they cannot reply. Poor form Phil H, poor form, imho.

"who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material."

I do hope you have personal evidence that these two comments are facts? From Mr. Marriott himself? He has mentioned or written that he has a personal axe to grind? He has told you that he does not want to accept the material has he?

I would bet you are actually wrong on both counts, but I'm not going to speak for the man himself. From my dealings with him, which have been lengthy and a great deal more than you I'd wager, I heard of no "personal axe" and as far as "accepting material" the comment is vague in the first part, and undefined in the second.

And now you can add another poster to the list of people you will ignore in future, for actually daring to speak up for Trevor Marriott... Me.

Poor form Phil H...and I regard you as having both tremendous knowledge and intelligence. My apologies. I am disappointed.

Not that it will mean s*d all to you though... or?...Surprise us.


best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

Actually Monty I suggested no such thing - you are one of the arch exponents of the childish remark.

And why should I be unwilling to name names? Libel? Can you libel the dead?
The attitude that the authenticity of the marginalia cannot be questioned as it might imply dishonesty on the part of some one or a group of people should be regarded as no more than an attempt to silence the questioning of the legitimacy of documents.

In my opinion the article that is the subject of this thread raised a number of issues that invited clarification.
The denunciations here just demonstrate a weak attitude towards the testing of documents and can be taken as a tacit admition that the marginalia has indeed been accepted too readily.

For the record I think it is likely on the balance of probabilities that the marginalia is genuine - yet that is far from suggesting that there are not legitimate questions which should be addressed.

[Monty]

Chris,

Edward has admitted he isn't informed on the subject, and is therefore passing ill informed comments.

An excuse? Of course not however that is now the nature of the beast.

Shoot your mouth off before you find out what exactly you are on about.

Monty

[Chris]

I am sure if I applied myself for a few hours I Could present a scenario as to how potentially the material could be faked.

No doubt you could present any number. I presented some myself above. But they were completely incredible.

As for not knowing who would have forged the material, we can all see who your innuendo was directed at. It's equally obvious why you didn't say it in so many words.

[Lechmere]

I am sure if I applied myself for a few hours I Could present a scenario as to how potentially the material could be faked.
However that again is putting the cart before the horse.

This is potentially similar to the Hitler Diaries , where the shear quantity of material fooled the most eminent historian in his field - as he wanted to believe. I am not saying it is the same. Nor do I know who would have forged the material - why should I know?
I am just raising issues.
Some of the answers to these issues have raised other issues in my mind which I will address when I am at my computer and not using an IPhone!
Some of the arguments put forward in response to my questions have also been childishly simplistic.

[Chris]

If any such actions have taken place here - and I have not said they have, i have merely raised a number of issues (which clearly have made some people uncomfortable), then I have no idea who would be responsible.

I'm afraid that is simply an insult to the intelligence.

[Chris]

Lechmere did write "I am afraid that I am reminded of Hugh Trevor Roper", so he made it pretty clear what he was suggesting.

I think in fairness he should explain how he thinks the marginalia could have been faked, in view of all the evidence presented in the comprehensive article by Adam and Keith. How could anyone have written in 1981 about Kosminski living in his brother's house and being sent to the workhouse and then to Colney Hatch? Is it supposed to have been a lucky guess? The fruit of secret archival research? Or is the draft News of the World article also supposed to be a fake? Or what?

[Lechmere]

I rather think that my point about the unpopularity of raising sceptical questions has been shown to be totally accurate by the shrill, aggresive and vitriolic responses from some quarters that my questions raised on this very thread.
Of course as a field for sensible research this is one of the things that brings 'Ripperology' into contempt with the wider historical research community.

In any event I was not aware that the points I raised had been raised before. Not that I scrutinise every thread on this or other forums. Nor have I been privy to the private conversations of those more intimately involved with the Swanson family.

There are many reasons why faked documents are produced. It is not uncommon. If any such actions have taken place here - and I have not said they have, i have merely raised a number of issues (which clearly have made some people uncomfortable), then I have no idea who would be responsible. At the moment anyway. Suggesting someone in particular is responsible is somewhat putting the cart before the horse as I have no idea whether there was anything for anyone to be responsible for - I am merely raising questions.
Hence I am at a loss to know who Phil thinks I am accusing - I can only guess that he is still stuck in a mental war with someone else (Trevor Mariott by tge sounds if it) and is dragging me into his private conflict.

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"With respect, there is that small preface to what Lechmere wrote which you have omitted and which I have italicised: "Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked." The implication is that asking sceptical questions "will not be popular"; well, with whom?"

Hmm. I did not read it that way at all. I think that "these thoughts" refer to the specific thoughts Lechmere expressed on matters relating to the Swanson marginalia, and not to a generalized scepticism as such - he knows very well that others have been sceptical, historically, I should think.

"Sceptical questions have been asked endlessly since the marginalia first came to public light."

Yes, I am aware of that! And a good thing too, I would say, since scepticism is a very useful tool. And I am not confusing it with implicating foul play with no substantiation, since that is not scepticism at all - that is slander. So letīs keep the two apart!

"To suggest that asking sceptical questions won't be popular, as if there is some body of people opposed to the asking of such questions, is a nonsense."

I really canīt say how true or untrue this is - but I CAN say that I donīt think, as I just stated, that the wording should be regarded as a rough generalization, but instead something that relates to the particular details Lechmere wrote about in relation to the marginalia.
But of course, to make totally sure what he meant, you must ask him. I am only trying to show you what made me make my comment.

"It is equally a nonsense for someone to suppose that those sceptical questions haven't already been asked - and, as Chris says, answered - many times."

Mmm. And as you will appreciate, I donīt think that was what Lechmere was doing. He would - as stated before - be quite well aware of the efforts made on behalf of both sides in the conflict.

"I really don't mind people being sceptical and expressing their scepticism. It is only right and proper that they do."

Exactly.

"But this idea that expressing scepticism will be unpopular in certain unspecified quarters is about as silly as it gets."

Not really. It can get a lot sillier. But I see what you mean, of course, and generally speaking I donīt disagree. That is not to say that one can never make a good guess in advance about who will agree with your posts and who will criticize them. But that is another thing - itīs as it should be. And fair and useful criticism is a much called for commodity, a good thing, whereas "popularity" is an awkward thing. I have often had it pointed out to me that some of my views are impopular in the sense that people do not agree with me, and I am not very fond of anybody who believes that such a thing is a pointer towards or away from veracity.

I know Edward (Lechmere) rather well, and I donīt think that you need to worry that he is unable to make the self same distinction. On the contrary.

Hope Iīve managed to clarify my own stance, at any rate!

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

There may be information and missing documents somewhere that can put this dilemma to rest once and for all, one way or the other.

Yeah, I hope so. We shall see.

[PaulB]

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily. The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

Whilst what you describe as the drip feed of documents does indeed generate sensible scepticism, the fact is that it wasn't until Nevil Swanson began to contact family members with a view to putting together all the surviving DSS material for auction that some of these documents came to light and/or that their significance was realised. There is therefore a good reason why this material has been drip fed, as it were. Now, there is a difference between healthy skepticism and creating doubts where none exist.

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"Why do you suppose that sceptical questions haven't been asked. And asked. And asked again?"

With respect, nobody has stated that those questions have not been asked. "in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked" was what was stated, and that is not the same as claiming that such questions have not been asked before, is it? It is more of a pointing out that it is urgent not to seize answering questions as long as something has not been established beyond all doubts.

With respect, there is that small preface to what Lechmere wrote which you have omitted and which I have italicised: "Obviously these thoughts will not be popular, but in the interests of unbiased investigation, sceptical questions should be asked." The implication is that asking sceptical questions "will not be popular"; well, with whom? Sceptical questions have been asked endlessly since the marginalia first came to public light. To suggest that asking sceptical questions won't be popular, as if there is some body of people opposed to the asking of such questions, is a nonsense. It is equally a nonsense for someone to suppose that those sceptical questions haven't already been asked - and, as Chris says, answered - many times. I really don't mind people being sceptical and expressing their scepticism. It is only right and proper that they do. But this idea that expressing scepticism will be unpopular in certain unspecified quarters is about as silly as it gets.

[Phil H]

Lechmere, I will in future treat your posts with the attention they deserve - by ignoring them. Unless you start to state things that are not true when I reserve the right to stand up for historical standards..

Phil there are lots if Swansons - which one have I defamed? I am not sure.

You know precisely which Swanson I referred to. remarks like that just indicate what a time-waster you are, and how little you are prepared to stand behind the remarks you make. Not that I am surprised.

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily.

So does it follow that you would only have been happy to accept the material returned 9anaonymously) to SY around 1988 if ALL the missing files had been returned. We deal with what we have.

the Swanson family are not "Rippologists" and have no need to be. Nor do they have to allow access to family papers to outsiders. They owe no responsibility to us at all.

The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

Only to those like you - or the unlamentedly absent Mr Marriott - who have a personal axe to grind and do NOT WANT to accept the material.

A close reading of the forensic reports indicates that it was checking documents that emanated from the same source against each other - essentially anyway.

I don't see how you could check a man's handwriting against someone else's, do you? You have to use the same source. Art galleries check paintings claimed to be by a particular artist against others in their collection and those of other institutions.

Or are you suggesting forgery? That all the DSS manuscript material owned by the family was by the same hand, but not authentic? THAT is the clear implication of your comment.

In the meantime I will dig out my scotland yard book to see what it says.

About what?

Phil H

[Lechmere]

Macnaghten also mentions Kosminski so whether the marginalia is authentic or not, Kosminski should be looked at closely.

Phil there are lots if Swansons - which one have I defamed? I am not sure.

If over twenty years ago when 'Ripperologists' first came into contact with the Swanson family, all the archive(with whatever family member) was scrutinised and searched for corroborative information - or further information of any kind - which would have been my priority if i was in that situation, then this would all sit more happily.
The drip feed of documents will - or should - generate sensible scepticism.

A close reading of the forensic reports indicates that it was checking documents that emanated from the same source against each other - essentially anyway.

In the meantime I will dig out my scotland yard book to see what it says.