New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;245943]Paul B:

"Nope. Not it. Nowhere near it. But I can see where you are misunderstanding me.
We cannot say whether the evidence against Kosminski was good or bad, we cannot assess the probability of his guilt or innocence, we cannot say whether he was in reality a strong suspect (likely to have been the murderer) or a weak suspect (unlikely to have been the murderer).
We can say with some degree of certainty that Kosminski was considered to be a strong suspect back then. We can say that because people from back then and who were in a position to know tell he was. And we can say with reasonable confidence that the people back then had reasons for suspecting him. We can say that because sensible and intelligent and informed people, especially policemen, generally have reasons for suspecting someone.
How we view Kosminski as a suspect on the evidence available to us today doesn't matter diddly. It would matter if we knew what the evidence was and could assess it and assess the probabilities, but we don't know what it was, so we can't assess it. But Kosminski was a serious suspect back then. No doubt about that."

I donīt object about any of this, Paul. It all tallies with what I think myself. The only thing I would add is that you forget to say that just as we have senior officers promoting Kosminski enthusiastically, we have other senior officers dissing him. Otherwise, this is something I agree with. I have not said that he was not a hot lead back then - I am saying that on basis of what we have on him TODAY, we can not state that he is a strong suspect. Period. And you have given all the reasons for this yourself.

[I]I am of course aware of what other policemen said, but I am in general as ignorant of why they said those things as I am of why Macnaghten et al said the things they said.

On the basis of what we know about Kosminski today it is arguable that Kosminski is only a marginally better suspect than Queen Victoria. But the evidence we have today doesn't mean diddly. It's what they thought back then that matters. Back then Kosminski was a strong suspect. And if he was a strong suspect back then, he's still a strong suspect today. Why? Because nothing has changed. As far as we know the evidence they had against him back then is as strong today as it was back then. The only way it could change now is if we knew what it was and could evaluate it. But we can't. Right now it doesn't exist. Maybe it is lost forever.

"That judgement has already been made by the people who had all the evidence. They decided that Kosminski was a serious suspect. It's not up to you to say he wasn't. "

And - believe it or not - I am not doing that either. I am not saying that he WASNīT. I am saying that he ISNīT. And that is because I cannot condone what Anderson had in retrospect without knowing what it was. And because I know full well that there were very clear disagreements about the value of the assessment made by Anderson.
Plus I would change "serious" for strong, to keep the discussion in line with the former posts. I happen to think Kosminski a serious suspect, but not a strong one. Distinctions, distinctions ...

The best,
Fisherman

And know and understand that you're not saying he wasn't, but that you are saying he isn't. I am saying that you are wrong. You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based.

But in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then, a status based on evidence that existed back then. You can't do that. You don't know what the evidence was. You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect simply because you don't know what the evidence was than made others take him seriously and even think he was Jack the Ripper. We don't deny or devalue or diminish what people tell us about their past simply because we don't know why they tell us it.

[Abby Normal]

Ah, well the case may be weak on the basis of the information which has survived, but even people playing detective today have to acknowledge that the information which exists today is unlikely to be all the information that existed back then. Even people playing detective today have to listen to the voices from back then, so that when one of them tells us that there were many things which made Kosminski a good suspect then there probably were many things that made him a good suspect even though we don't know what those many things were. And unless people playing detective today have very good reasons for doubting the word of our witnesses to the past, they have no real alternative but to accept what they are told, especially when other witnesses to the past describe actions that were taken and conclusions that were reached. The bottom line is that what exists today is not what existed back then, and unless you have very good reasons for believing that what doesn't exist today didn't exist back then either, the detective today has to accept that all the witnesses and suspects and evidence and everything is just a fragment of what once existed. Anyone playing detective today has a tough job. Most of their evidence, evidence in every form, doesn't exist anymore.

Hi Paul
Thank you for your response. I see your point but I respectfully disagree because i just cant take someone's word from the past,without really knowing what it was, and label someone today a strong suspect. And as i am looking at it in legal and accusatory terms-as in who is guilty for the ripper murders-the case today for Kos in my view is weak. As is the case for all the ripper suspects. i will leave it at that.

I have to say though that it is really nice that someone of your high level in the field responds to posts not only of other esteemed ripperophiles but also to novice enthusiasts such as myself. Its much appreciated.

I would also be remiss if I did not add that i bought and read Robs excellent book and it is one of the reasons why i even consider Kos at all as a suspect.

Now if I could only get my hands on that elusive documentary!!!

[PaulB]

Hi Paul
Thank you for your response. I see your point but I respectfully disagree because i just cant take someone's word from the past,without really knowing what it was, and label someone today a strong suspect. And as i am looking at it in legal and accusatory terms-as in who is guilty for the ripper murders-the case today for Kos in my view is weak. As is the case for all the ripper suspects. i will leave it at that.

The only reason Kosminski is a suspect at all is because of what people in the past said about him, so if you don't accept what those people said then Kosminski isn't a suspect at all. And neither is any other contemporary suspect. And for matter an awful lot of history vanishes as well.

The past is what the people living there have said about it, and the past doesn't change just because the evidence on which they based what they said doesn't exist anymore. If Kosminski was a serious suspect then, he is a serious suspect now, unless we can assess the evidence on which him being a suspect is based, and we can't because it doesn't exist anymore.

As far as Kosminski is concerned, nothing has changed between then and now. The evidence for his guilt is the same now as it was then, except that then they knew what that evidence was, now we don't. If we did, and if we thought it was rubbish, then we could question, doubt and devalue their conclusions. But we don't and we can't. And so it is that Kosminski has the same status now as he did then. There really isn't an alternative.

I have to say though that it is really nice that someone of your high level in the field responds to posts not only of other esteemed ripperophiles but also to novice enthusiasts such as myself. Its much appreciated.

Thank you.

Paul

[Robert]

Having played bridge, i know that when the odds are dead against your making your contract, you try to envisage a distribution of cards that would allow you to make your contract, and then play for that. If you fail, you've had back luck....or maybe you're a lousy player. Ahem! Anyway, I'm interested in Kosminski, because he's a possible and was mentioned in the case. It doesn't actually matter if he is a strong candidate or a weak candidate, a serious one or a coffee table one. Of course, everyone will have different views on all of that. But he is a possible who was mentioned.

Fred Bloggs, on the other hand, who lived a couple of miles away and kept ferrets, may be a possible. He may even have been the Ripper. But since he is nowhere mentioned in the case, there's no reason to think that he was. So I leave Fred alone. And I steer clear of those bloody ferrets too.

It's not as though we are snowed under with suspects and have to prioritise our time. There's the Polish Jew, Druitt, Tumblety, Hutchinson, Barnett...I insist on adding Cutbush and in return will add Cross ... and there's probably a couple I've temporarily forgotten. We can research all these.

If I was given one year to live I might prioritise, but for that I hope that I will have to wate a whil longer.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

Ae there any plans in the pipeline for an eventual follow-up article related to the History of the Marginalia?

Also, may I ask if there any plans to an equivilent article relating to the Monro papers, as asked on the relevant Monro thread?

Many thanks in advance

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Paul B:

"I am saying that you are wrong."

That I am. Or perhaps I am right. Thing is, Paul, neither you nor me can tell. AS you so aptly put it yourself:

" You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based."

Nor do you. We are both left in the dark. But you claim that you are allowed to switch the light back on again, since we may safely conclude that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong.

And thatīs where I think YOU are wrong (on two counts, actually...!)

You are accepting that Anderson and Swanson, as Iīm told, were experienced policemen, totally capable of making the right call. And the fact that Smith, Littlechild, Abberline, MacNaghten etc, etc, did NOT buy Andersons story is something you detract from your mathematical exercise. These men do not detract anything at all - if Anderson implied that the case was strong, then we must accept that the case WAS strong. No downgrading must be there.

But Paul, if we are to rely on Anderson and Swanson, then why not rely totally on them? Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper. And Anderson tells us that the Ripper was the man they had.

Why do YOU detract from what thesde eminent men tell you? Why do you not trust them to the full? What is it that holds you back?

Is it your realization that claiming somebody is something that you cannot prove in any minimal manner at all, is the equivalent of pulling a pink rabbit out of a a mqagicianīs hat? If so, I say donīt be shy - if you can pull off a strong candidacy on no evidence at all, exchanging it for putting trust in the theory of a man that was called outrageous by a contemporary senior officer, then you can of course pull a proven Rippership off too on behalf of Aaron Kosminski. Thatīs how it works - if you can conclude on thing without evidence, then you can equally conclude another. ANY other, as it were.

" in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then"

I am doing no such thing at all, and you should know it. I have very clearly and explicitly said that it is blatantly obvious that Anderson put great trust in Kosminski, and that he may well have been correct, just as he may have been wrong. I am therefore effectively not saying anything at all about any proven status back then, and I am refraining from it for the exact same reason as I do so today: we donīt know what had him accused.

"You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect"

No. And I donīt do so either. I donīt comment explicitely on any shred of evidence from the 19:th century, because I have no idea what it was. Therefore I totally accept that he was the top suspect in Andersonīs eyes, and nothing at all like that in Smithīs and Littlechildīs eyes. You see, he did not have just the one status as a suspect back then - he had many. As many as there were commentators among the senior men.

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I donīt accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Now, Paul, we have sung our respective arias in all keyes possible, have we not? I think we are going to need to agree to disagree before we run out of server capacity. I know where you stand and why, you know where I stand and why. Letīs leave it there and move on!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

...Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper...

I'm afraid this is a misconception. Swanson was relating the reasons why the witness refused to bear testimony... the reasons in the witness' mind; not what he (Swanson) thought might be incriminating enough to bring a guilty verdict.
It was the witness' conscious and that individual's reasoning that was being explained. Swanson had been involved in enough cases to know that without direct evidence (non circumstantial) there was never any certainty of a conviction.

I know what Swanson wrote and on the surface it does appear direct, but I believe it is a result of trying to be brief in limited space.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Paul B:

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I donīt accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Fisherman,

May be useful to separate a few of your points here:

1) Quite clearly, no road is the 'obvious right choice'.

2) Having said that, some roads are built upon stronger foundations than others.

3) Therefore, it is non-sensical to give equal weight to the roads as matter of principle, particularly when the foundations tell us otherwise.

4) The Kosminski road is a strong one, for reasons that shouldn't need to be stated.

5) Clearly, we do not know what the case was against Kosminski, but we do know that three senior policemen felt thay had a strong case.

6) Therefore, in the event you're prepared to label Kosminski a 'weak suspect' then it follows thus you believe the three policemen didn't have much of a case, even though the information is not available for your assessment; which could suggest a few things about your line of reasoning as opposed to the strength of the Kosminski case.

[PaulB]

Paul B:

"I am saying that you are wrong."

That I am. Or perhaps I am right. Thing is, Paul, neither you nor me can tell. AS you so aptly put it yourself:

" You see, nobody is asking you to agree with what Anderson said and that's just as well because you can't honestly do that. You don't know why he said it, so there is no reason why you should agree with him. The trouble is that you can't disagree with him either, for the self same reason: you don't know the evidence on which what Anderson said was based."

Nor do you. We are both left in the dark. But you claim that you are allowed to switch the light back on again, since we may safely conclude that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong.

No, I do not and I have never claimed that Anderson and Swanson are more likely to be right than wrong. My whole point is that we don't know what evidence they had against Kosminski and therefore can't even begin to assess it and reach any conclusion about the probability of them being right or wrong.

My point has nothing whatsoever to do with Anderson et al being right or wrong. I am simply making a statement of fact: Macnaghten states that Kosminski was a strong suspect, Anderson and Swanson (subject to certain caveats) state Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Kosminski was clearly a strong suspect to those gentlemen. You agree with me.

And thatīs where I think YOU are wrong (on two counts, actually...!)

You are accepting that Anderson and Swanson, as Iīm told, were experienced policemen, totally capable of making the right call. And the fact that Smith, Littlechild, Abberline, MacNaghten etc, etc, did NOT buy Andersons story is something you detract from your mathematical exercise. These men do not detract anything at all - if Anderson implied that the case was strong, then we must accept that the case WAS strong. No downgrading must be there.

Once again you are investing me with opinions I don't hold. To begin with, I am not engaging in any mathematical excercise. Nor am I saying that we must accept that the case against Kosminski was strong because Anderson tells us it was (nor, indeed, am I saying that we must accept it was strong because Macnaghten tells us it was strong). Nor am I discounting anything Littlechild et al said.

I am stating that Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson clearly believed that the case against Kosminski was strong. You agree with me. I am saying that Smith et al don't appear to have shared that opinion. You agree with me. I am saying that we don't know why Anderson etc believed what they did. You agree with me. I am saying that we don't know why Smith and Co believed what they did. You agree with me.

You, however, argue that because we don't know the evidence on which Anderson and Co based that their belief that Kosminski's stature as a suspect is therefore diminished TODAY.

I do not say that. I say that Kosminski's status as a suspect is no different now than it was back then. The evidence against Kosminski is the same now as it was back then. It hasn't changed at all. The only difference is that back then they knew what that evidence was, whereas today we don't.

I am drawing no conclusion about Kosminski's status as a suspect. You are. You acknowledge that Kosminski was a strong suspect back then (at least as far as Anderson and Co are concerned), but without knowing any of the evidence against him, you are saying he isn't a strong suspect TODAY.

That's like saying Boudica wasn't "fearsome of aspect" because we don't have the evidence on which that claim by Dio Cassius was based.

But Paul, if we are to rely on Anderson and Swanson, then why not rely totally on them? Swanson, with all that experience and knowledge, puts it beyond questioning that what they had on the suspect was enough to hang him. He was - or could be successfully claimed to be, in a court of law - Jack the Ripper. And Anderson tells us that the Ripper was the man they had.

Is it your realization that claiming somebody is something that you cannot prove in any minimal manner at all, is the equivalent of pulling a pink rabbit out of a a mqagicianīs hat? If so, I say donīt be shy - if you can pull off a strong candidacy on no evidence at all, exchanging it for putting trust in the theory of a man that was called outrageous by a contemporary senior officer, then you can of course pull a proven Rippership off too on behalf of Aaron Kosminski. Thatīs how it works - if you can conclude on thing without evidence, then you can equally conclude another. ANY other, as it were.

Yet again you attributing things to me that I don't say. This whole discussion is about whether or not something somebody said in the past is any the less reliable in the present simply because we don't now know why they said it.

" in discounting Kosminski's status as a suspect today, based on the evidence you possess today (which is next to nothing), you are discounting his status as a suspect back then"

I am doing no such thing at all, and you should know it. I have very clearly and explicitly said that it is blatantly obvious that Anderson put great trust in Kosminski, and that he may well have been correct, just as he may have been wrong. I am therefore effectively not saying anything at all about any proven status back then, and I am refraining from it for the exact same reason as I do so today: we donīt know what had him accused.

On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing. Kosminski's status as a suspect is wholly and absolutely dependent on the evidence that existed back then. Unless that evidence has changed, and it hasn't, there are absolutely no grounds for concluding that Kosminski is more or less valid as a suspect today that he was back then.

"You can't discount Kosminski's worth as a suspect"

No. And I donīt do so either. I donīt comment explicitely on any shred of evidence from the 19:th century, because I have no idea what it was. Therefore I totally accept that he was the top suspect in Andersonīs eyes, and nothing at all like that in Smithīs and Littlechildīs eyes. You see, he did not have just the one status as a suspect back then - he had many. As many as there were commentators among the senior men.

We're not discussing Kosminski's worth in Anderson's eyes. We're discussing Kosminski's status as a suspect. Two different things. And Smith et al don't comment on his worth as a suspect. And Macnaghten, who prima facie didn't share Anderson's opinion that Kosminski was Jack, does acknowledge that he was a strong suspect. And, as I repeatedly observe, since we don't know what those 'many circs' which made him a strong suspect were, we cannot say whether they were valid or not.

And please note that just as I do not accept that Anderson must have been right - but could have been - I donīt accept that Smith must have been right either - but he too could have been. There is a choice of two roads and no sign telling us which is the right one. To me, that is the equivalent of no road being the obviously right choice. And in consequence with that, Kosminski is TODAY a man with a not only weak, but factually almost non-existant amount of evidence behind him as a Ripper suspect.

Right, one last attempt: Today there is no evidence against Kosminski. Well, yes there is. There is exactly the same evidence against him as existed back then, we just don't know what it was. However, those who did know, like Macnaghten, said there were many circs which made Kosminski a strong suspect. You don't know what those circs were, so you can't even begin to assess whether Macnaghten was correct in saying what he did.

The whole point is that the evidence hasn't changed. Not one iota. He doesn't have weak or even non-existant evidence against him, it is only that you don't know what the evidence was.

As I have said, Macnaghten says Kosminski was a strong suspect, Dio Cassius says Boudica was a woman fearsome of aspect. Neither statement is based on evidence we possess today, but that doesn't make Kosminski any less of a suspect than it makes Boudica less fearsome to look upon.

Now, Paul, we have sung our respective arias in all keyes possible, have we not? I think we are going to need to agree to disagree before we run out of server capacity. I know where you stand and why, you know where I stand and why. Letīs leave it there and move on!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes.

[Garry Wroe]

Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean that rudely. But the point is that maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was rubbish, but Macnaghten tells us that there ‘were many circs' that made "Kosminski" 'a strong suspect’ and Anderson and Swanson thought he was Jack the Ripper. Prima facie that doesn't look like a completely empty hand of cards.

Well, Paul, Macnaghten cast Ostrog as an uber homicidal manic, a claim which has since proven to have been utter nonsense. He also had Druitt as a much stronger Ripper candidate than either Ostrog or Kosminski, and yet was able to make only the flimsiest of cases against Druitt. This being so, it appears pretty self-evident that the authorities had little or no tangible evidence with which to link Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders.

Did Anderson have a priori conclusions regarding ethnicity and so forth of the killer? He says that the conclusion we came to was that he was a low-class Polish Jew. That could mean Anderson, or Anderson and others, or just the police (or those police responsible for reaching the conclusion). Tellingly the supposedly arrogant and boastful Anderson does not claim it as his conclusion. And as far as we know it may have been but one of several conclusions the police reached.

Sorry, Paul, but Anderson’s words leave no room for doubting Anderson’s opinions: ‘One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of the virulent type; and that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad’ (31 August to 6 October) ‘the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his bloodstains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.’

That’s fairly unequivocal to my mind.

And there is no evidence that the whole case against "Kosminski" rested on the eye-witness identification. Maybe it did, but there is no evidence for that.

The Met and City forces were exchanging case-related intelligence on a daily basis, Paul. Had the Met uncovered information implicating Kosminski in the Ripper series, Major Smith would have known about it. And yet Smith freely admitted to having been totally defeated by the Whitechapel Murderer. On top of this Smith’s own Kosminski investigation turned up nothing incriminating. So it is quite straightforward: if Smith either failed to uncover or learn of information that identified Kosminski as the killer, the evidence simply wasn’t there. This explains why Macnaghten concluded that Druitt was a more likely killer than Kosminski, and why Abberline dismissed the notion that the Ripper had been identified and committed to an asylum. It probably also goes some way to explaining Smith’s virulent condemnation of Anderson’s literary claims with regard to the killer’s identification.

And maybe the evidence against "Kosminski" was non-existent, but that's doubtful. Policemen don't usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence. That the evidence was crap and they were barking up the wrong tree, I can accept. But not that no evidence existed at all.

My feeling, Paul, is that Kosminski somehow came to the attention of the authorities and was investigated by the City with no tangible result. Anderson, on the other hand, noted that Kosminski met all of the criteria which constituted his ‘profile’ of the killer. Kosminski’s identification at the Seaside Home confirmed the issue beyond all doubt in Anderson’s mind, and Anderson then took Kosminski’s approximation to the profile as further evidence of guilt. This explains Anderson’s claim of moral certainty regarding the issue. No talk of evidence, just moral certainty. And that, as far as I’m concerned, is very revealing.

Now, you say that ‘policemen don’t usually think someone is a murderer on the basis of non-existent evidence’, and by and large you are correct. But policemen can and do get things wrong – especially policemen possessed of an authoritarian personality as was certainly the case with Anderson. I have already referred to the case of Terry Hawkshaw, and there are plenty more examples besides. Remember Colin Stagg? Or Tim Evans? The Birmingham Six? The Guildford Four? Stefan Kiszko? Sean Hodgson? Sally Clark?

Again, look at the ‘evidence’ cited by Macnaghten in support of his Druitt theory. It is nonexistent. Yet Macnaghten clearly believed that the case against Druitt was more compelling than that relating to Kosminski. Thus one is bound to conclude that, beyond the Seaside Home identification, there wasn’t a scrap of tangible evidence linking Kosminski to the Whitechapel Murders. Not a scrap. And there was certainly nothing to justify Anderson’s contention that the killer’s identity had been established as a ‘definitely ascertained fact’.

[Garry Wroe]

If I have not burnt my ships, Garry - can I please kiss you?

Well, Fish, since this is the best offer I've had all day ...

[Garry Wroe]

The identification described by Anderson and Swanson may have been conducted by the City

Smith made no reference to it, Scott, and both Anderson and Swanson create the distinct impression that the affair was a Met operation.

[Phil H]

There is a very real problem here which means this is a "dialogue" of the deaf. Paul B, myself and others have been seeking to discuss the HISTORICAL METHOD. that is not something we have invented but is the academic structure and approach that underlies most serious works and all historical scholarship.

Evidence, and the remarks of Anderson, Swanson et al are EVIDENCE, cannot be lightly discarded or dismissed. They can be discussed, weighed and a rational given for accepting or discounting what is said - the judgement of others is then on whether those arguments are valid and accepted. That is as true in discussing Augustus Caesar; the Black Death or JtR. A contemporary view has to be given weight, even if modern historians believe other perhaps scientific or archaeological evidence, or the views of other contemporaries contradict it.

It is through the careful analysis and comparison of what is said that understanding emerges, but more important a concensus is reached so that the conclusion established can be used as a building black in further discussion.

Others of you - either unaware of, uneducated in, or because you dislike its disciplines - seem to be relying on a looser and more subjective view based on reason or logic or just personal preference.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that, but views that do not based themselves on the accepted approach are less likely to receive wide acceptance and will provide a less stable platform for continuing work.

Phil H

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Adam,

Ae there any plans in the pipeline for an eventual follow-up article related to the History of the Marginalia?

Also, may I ask if there any plans to an equivilent article relating to the Monro papers, as asked on the relevant Monro thread?

Many thanks in advance

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

There can only be a follow up if enough new information or documents are discovered which warrant an article. Otherwise, these discoveries will be posted here.

Regarding Monro, I did respond on that thread to say that I discussed the idea with Keith and he agrees it would be a good thing. He's going to approach the Monro family to seek their permission to publish his memoirs. If we get that, we'll be working on an article similar to Swanson and Macnaghten.

Best wishes
Adam

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

There can only be a follow up if enough new information or documents are discovered which warrant an article. Otherwise, these discoveries will be posted here.

Regarding Monro, I did respond on that thread to say that I discussed the idea with Keith and he agrees it would be a good thing. He's going to approach the Monro family to seek their permission to publish his memoirs. If we get that, we'll be working on an article similar to Swanson and Macnaghten.

Best wishes
Adam

Hello Adam,

Thank you for the positive responses.

On the first point, of course, only if more turns up etc.. I was hoping for the exact response you have given. Thank you.

Re Monro.. I apologise as I have missed your answer on the other thread.
It is indeed superb news and it really would be of great value, imho. My thanks to Keith and yourself for this positive consideration to my request.

best wishes

Phil