New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[Lechmere]

Chris
I didn't say they were faked - I said that proper verification is not possible and that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that it could have been avoided.
I also said that for any new historical document to be taken seriously, then it should be open to scrupulous testing.
Scrupulous testing has not taken place.

[Chris]

I think that Trevor Marriott had some concerns as well.

Certainly he did in the past. After the article was published he said he was going to digest it and comment further in due course.

And obviously a number of other people had doubts in the past about the marginalia. But I don't think anyone else continued to express doubts after the article by Adam and Keith was published, did they?

[Chris]

I do believe I have gone into some detail as to why these documents should be regarded with a degree of scepticism, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

I'm sorry, but it just won't wash.

You've said the marginalia are written in pencil. You've said the authors of some of these letters are dead. You've said there is no record of how the News of the World article reached the Crime Museum. You've said that some of the material has only just emerged. You've said that one document has gone missing. You've said that Dr Davies used material supplied by the family for comparison.

None of that indicates these documents are fakes, and it's no good pretending it does.

[Bridewell]

You seem to be alone in being sceptical about the authenticity of these documents,

Hi Chris,

I think that Trevor Marriott had some concerns as well.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Chris
I do believe I have gone into some detail as to why these documents should be regarded with a degree of scepticism, but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
The article which concerns this thread is a history of the Marginalia rather than an investigation into it's authenticity.

[Chris]

However I don't think I am alone in being sceptical or in seeking research to be carried out in a scrupulous manner.

You seem to be alone in being sceptical about the authenticity of these documents, which is not surprising as you haven't been able to give us a single reason to be sceptical!

As for scrupulous research, I think the article by Adam and Keith is a model of that, and the evidence they present should be ample to satisfy any reasonable doubts people may have had.

[Lechmere]

Chris
There is reason to doubt every new historical document that unveils new information.
That I am afraid is the nature of the beast.
Is 'Ripperology' exempt from this. I think not.
Or am I 'outvoted' and so the matter should rest?
However I don't think I am alone in being sceptical or in seeking research to be carried out in a scrupulous manner.

[Chris]

Lechmere

Again, you've failed to produce a single reason for doubting the authenticity of these documents. (To say that in different circumstances there would have been other opportunities of authenticating them is very different from that.)

As you seem to be alone in your suspicions, maybe the best thing would be for you to pursue them directly with the parties concerned.

[Lechmere]

Yes Roy that interesting article - the topic of this thread - was the catalyst for my questions.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Lechmere,

There is an excellent research article in the current issue #128 of Ripperologist magazine which should answer your questions. If you've not read it yet, I recommend it. Included are Mr. Davies' two (2) forensic examintaions. Much of the supporting documentation and background to the story of the marginalia has been known for years, but this article puts it all in one place. Most convenient.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Monty
Actually access to the Pickfords material is restricted. I had previously unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to it several times. Pickfords do not encourage members of the public to trample their muddy boots over their board room - which is where I examined the documents.

If the Marginalia were a forgery it would have had to have been done before its publication in the Telegraph. That is about all that can be said I would suggest. Who could be accused of doing it is a different question altogether and I have no idea who could potentially have done it. It is irrelevant. Again - why was Christopher Davies employed in authenticating the handwriting twice? Can this be regarded as some sort of veiled accusation?

As for a voluntary ID, are you suggesting that Kosminsky went there voluntarily?
Or that the witness went there voluntarily?
And only then realised that Kosminsky was Jewish?
And that he didn’t realise that Kosminsky was Jewish when he saw him doing whatever it was he saw him doing?

[Lechmere]

Chris
What I have done is ask questions – and invited answers which have not been forthcoming.
I also said that it might well be the case that there are sensible and easy answers to these questions. It might be the case that those who have these answers haven’t seen this thread (why should they) or cannot be bothered to answer (which is their prerogative)

In contrast I am quite happy to answer your question – which you actually haven’t posed before.
You previously asked about my use of the term ‘strange and inexplicable’ which I do believe I have answered.

I have spelt out quite clearly the grounds for being sceptical about the Swanson documents. Here they are again.

• The information has come out in drips and drabs. We are told that items were first released over 30 years ago so there was clearly an awareness of the potential importance of these documents for some considerable time, yet items have been sat on for all this time.
• The records largely emanate from one source and have not been cross checked against independently obtained records.
• The only other independently obtained record ‘strangely and inexplicably’ turned up at the Scotland Yard Museum. No rational explanation has been forthcoming about this.
• Most of the writing is in pencil. This makes it difficult to establish the age of the writing.
• The News of the World items have only been released after the death of the people involved at the NOTW and after the NOTW ceased publication. This makes checking the authenticity of the NOTW items next to impossible.
• An important document has gone missing altogether and so far as I am aware has never been properly checked for authenticity. As it is missing verifying its authenticity is impossible.

These are questions which should be asked and answered. It is not realistic to just take new historical documents on trust.
Contrary to your repeated assertions I have not suggested anyone of fakery and collusion.

The Marginalia, some letters and documents were given to Christopher Davies to examine the handwriting. In doing this was it implicit that a suggestion was being made that someone was guilty of fakery and collusion? Or was it just a sensible precautionary measure?
I am suggesting that a range of other sensible precautionary measure have not been taken and I have also pointed out that it is impossible to now undertake a number of sensible precautionary measures.

[Monty]

Access to the Marginalia has been far more limited that to, I dunno, say Pickford records, in as far as it has not been open to access to the General Public.

Therefore the accusation is clear in my opinion, and I suspect Chris has this in mind.

As for illegal procedure re the indentification, this of course does not include a voluntary I D.

Monty

[Chris]

For the record I haven’t accused anyone of forgery or collusion.

What I wrote was that you had publicly suggested that the people concerned may have been guilty of fakery and collusion. You continue to do so in your latest post.

I asked you to explain why you think there are any grounds to doubt the authenticity of any of this material. All you have done in response is produce more of the same vague, rambling innuendo.

Please can you give us a clear, concise answer? Do you have any reason at all to think that any of this material is not authentic? If so, what is it?

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood
I would agree that the chances of the police being able to cross reference any data they might have retained from the house to house searches, with subsequent information they may have received is next to zero.
They (Swanson at his desk) would have been inundated with leads.

In my opinion the police were kept informed about new inmates in asylums - particularly from the East End involving Jews, sex and violence. That I think would be enough to put Kosminsky in the frame. There is no need for any missing information. These are the circs.

I also think that Kosminsky is an amalgam of suspects and the Seaside Home ID is muddled with other IDs,.
Again with all the data passing over Swanson's desk it is hardly surprising if in later years he got things mixed up. And Andesron was dependent upon Swanson for his info.