Private sale

[Sally]

Ed - Oh, go on then - how, in your view, are the recordings fraudulently attributed to Joyce Hatto directly comparable to documentary forgery?

Other than that they're both fakes??? I'm not sure I see the relevance of the comparison.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I applaud you for looking for answers.

[Rubyretro]

Ok lets get down to possible motives. Personally I'm of the mind that people often have several motives for doing something, and if the Marginalia was forged then it was for different motives, not just one.

Next, we have to see who would be the person most likely to have forged the Marginalia -and there is only one candidate really -Jim Swanson.

I'm just going to look at what has been written about Jim to see if he would have the personality (from what is noted), and the practical capabilities, to have forged some of the Marginalia and documents, and to have promoted them. If he did, what might have been his motives, going on what we know about him ?

This is obviously only a personal opinion.

1) First of all it said in the Ripperologist article that Jim and his brother and sister had been taught about the appreciation and value of antiques by Aunt Lal. There was a painter in the Family. In Jim's obituary it says that he designed a tanning factory in France in 1951. His party piece was tanning mice and frogs. He appears to have enjoyed writing letters, and annotating books himself.

The image that I get from that is of a creative person, from a family which had an artistic streak.

2)His obituary states that he “represented the trade at many functions around the world. One of his specialities was to produce samples of mouseskin or frogskin both at lectures and on TV. This was particularly appreciated by viewers in Hong Kong! “

He was used to being on a stage in front of people, and those appreciative TV viewers in Hong Kong, watching him show his trademark eccentric frogskins, make him sound like a bit of a flamboyent entertainer.

3)Indeed those frog and mouseskins ( from a journalist : To this day, I still have a small, orange coloured, tanned mouseskin, a personal gift to me from `Mr Swanson' that I would not dream of parting with".) would suggest that he enjoyed minute delicate work. This appears to have been his hobby, rather than doing great big sculptures for example.

4)Not only did Jim do lectures and TV shows to promote the leather industry, but the Editor of Leather magazine noted that when he was a leader of the British Leather Foundation “That was in the heady days when press relations was high on the priority list.” And we know that he continued to enjoy contacting the Press after he was retired (simply not on the same subject).

I get the impression that he knew how the Press worked and how to use it, and he could make friendly network contacts with journalists (he gave a personal 'mouse'gift to a journalist). Infact one could say that he made friendly network contacts within the world of Ripperology, when he wanted to promote the Marginalia.

5)He had had a very exciting life, and apart from being in the Navy during the war, had spent time in France, Australia and New Zealand. He had been very busy, and had had goals to achieve ( particularly when the Leather industry was going through a difficult time). He had been the focus of other people's attention when he had done lectures and TV shows, and he had held power within Industry. He must have been the subject of some bootlicking by his subordinates when he was General Manager of his factories, but then member of Council , Deputy President, and President of the British Leather Foundation.

I don't feel that it is sticking my neck out to imagine that he must have been bored, and deprived of narcississtic supply, when he retired. He might well have felt ignored and at a loose end.

6)He must have been quite an authoritarian and dominating personality. Despite being an obviously charming and charismatic man, I don't see how he could have risen to positions of authority without being authoritarian.

7)It is noted in the Ripperologist article that “ Jim had no interest in money” ( and Stuart Evans adds “ and I had no reason to doubt him”. However EVERYBODY is interested in money, and particularly someone who's whole career had been ultimately dedicated (successfully) to making money for the Leather Industry.

8)Jim knew all about DSS's involvement in the case, and he was proud of him. Jim says in a letter (referring to DSS) “ I thought that he deserved a mention –if even long after his death”
Swanson didn’t like the way that the policemen involved were portrayed in Ripper books in the NoTW draft shown, it is said that the marginalia make it clear that, if there was a police ‘cover up’, then DSS had no part of it.Stephen Knights book -which had caused a big stir in the late '70s ( I bought it myself !) had also shown the police in an unfavourable light, and I can't remember DSS even playing a part.

I believe that Jim felt a sense of injustice on behalf of DSS, and the police. He might also have taken the slight personally if his connection to DSS was something that he felt personal pride about.

9)In the draft of the News of the World Story, Jim refers to Kosminski being cited by Macnaghten as a police suspect –so he knew about that, and he also says ‘most’ experts don’t give Kosminski a mention, but ‘most’ experts is not ‘no’ experts. For Jim to know what the ‘experts’ were saying, or not, he would have to have been reading up on the subject, and specifically on the suspects.

The name Kosminski had already appeared in a modern book, because Rumbelow had mentioned him once in a book in the 1970s for a start.

I think that he knew the name Kosminski when he came into possesssion of the book.

10)Whereas we know that the Ripperologists used gloves when they took the Marginalia to be filmed, and used acetate paper to protect the pages -Jim had no qualms about glueing in a letter and
drawing red lines in it (explained away as “Jim was just trying to be helpful”). He did not mind defacing the book.

Could it be that he felt a sense of entitlement (to write in his own book), and a sense that the 'usual rules' did not apply to him because he was cleverer than everyone else and he could do what he wanted without fear of contradiction ?

11)I believe that it is Stuart Evans that said that when he made an attempt to question the Marginalia, that Jim got agitated and so Stuart dropped it because Jim was frail and Stuart was a guest in his house.

But could it be that Jim did not want to answer any awkward questions ?

To recapitulate I think that Jim had the personality and the capabilities and the opportunity to forge the most important parts of the Marginalia. I think that the motives would be a mixture of pride in DSS and a grievence that his place in Ripper History wasn't recognised and that the police in general were portrayed as incompetents -the rerighting of an injustice. Pride in his own practical skills and abilities to fool people. Boredom. Enjoyment of a 'secret' which made him feel superior.
Attention (after all, he got to go on the telly again, and was courted by Ripperologists). Oh, and potential money of course.

[Ally]

11)I believe that it is Stuart Evans that said that when he made an attempt to question the Marginalia, that Jim got agitated and so Stuart dropped it because Jim was frail and Stuart was a guest in his house.

But could it be that Jim did not want to answer any awkward questions ?

Stewart said no such thing as far as i am aware. Stewart said that due to Jim being old and frail, he did not choose to question him. There was absolutely nothing in there about Jim getting agitated at the questions so Stewart decided to drop it. Stewart did not raise any questions with Jim at all.

To recapitulate I think that Jim had the personality and the capabilities and the opportunity to forge the most important parts of the Marginalia.

Have you ever met Jim Swanson? Seen him in person? On TV? Just what exactly are you basing your assessment of his personality on??? You are basing an assessment on his personality based entirely on the fact that he did lectures on leather products for his company? His great enjoyment of the spotlight as evidenced by his discourse on the merits of mouseskin vs. frogskin? You feel he must enjoy attention because he had authority of some sort and would have bootlickers?

My brother is a very high powered person in a certain field. He gives lectures, press interviews and is very well respected and regarded in his business. He wields considerable power in his business and despises bootlickers, is not flamboyant, though a bit gregarious. He does not crave limelight, power, or any other aspect and he does not feel superior to anyone.

You cannot infer personality based on a couple of traits that are immaterial to actual personality.

[Lechmere]

Sally
In essence a large number of recordings were ‘forged’ by Joyce Hatto’s husband so that they appeared to be by her.
Hatto and her husband were very well regarded and did not make a fortune out of it.
The motive was partly financial, partly vanity, partly cocking a snook to get the fame they thought she deserved.
People were too scared to raise any issues while she was alive for fear of being called names.
The classical music establishment sneered and snarled at the few people who raised objections, who were then induced to remain silent.
Upon closer examination, their fraud, their forgery, became obvious. They invented East European (Iron Curtain) orchestras and conductors! But initially no one would check properly as it was deemed impossible that anything could be amiss.

Isn’t this obvious?

[Steve S]

I'm afraid we're moving to a "No smoke without fire" viewpoint (or some are)....OK someone can make a case for a multi-generational Swanson fraud...I could make a case for Hitler surviving WWII and yammer on like a demented Parrot saying "Prove He didn't..Prove He didn't" until it slowly becomes accepted "Well Yeah..I suppose he COULD have survived" I STILL see nothing to make me concerned...

[Lechmere]

Steve
I don't think its a case of 'no smoke without fire' at all.
I think its a case of not accepting a new historical document without testing it fully and where possible finding answers to all lose ends.

[Rob Clack]

There seems to be a serious lack of knowledge from people who wish to discredit the Swansong Marginally. Perhaps a study of Ripper history in the 1970z and 80s would be more beneficial before attempting to bring peoples professionalism and integrity into disrepute. Also a little bit of evidence would be nice instead of the constant stream of unfounded speculation from people with personal agendas.

Rob

[Hunter]

As someone one said:
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound.

Yes indeed.
See above post by Ruby.

It may been fine for Ripperologists to theorize about Jack the Ripper and who he might have been (I don't even do that for my own reasons). Its another thing to suggest that a member or members of a family concocted or forged documents without real evidence that this took place.

This is not a parlor game. Present the evidence instead of supposition and innuendos. Because right now, the evidence points to the marginalia having been written by Donald Sutherland Swanson.

[Robert]

Hi Ruby

The money is hidden behind the painting.

Regards

Mystic Meg

[Lechmere]

Hunter
I think Ruby was seeking to establish that Jim Swanson could have been the sort of person who could have been capable of engineering a slightly sophisticated forgery - with motive and potentially the skill necessary. The second Davis report didn't really consider the possibility that a more sophisticated hand was at work.

Why are names named?
Why is the way something may have been forged gone into?

Only because the defenders of the Marginalia demand it.
It should be sufficient to point out flaws in the testing process and suggest that other avenues for enquiry should be pursued to close off these loopholes.

I have gone into great detail about various areas where there is a less than satisfactory knowledge about items related to the Marginalia. The only person who has attempted to address any of these issues is Adam Wood, but he has only addressed a few off them.
It might be that he has other answers that close off these concerns.
It might be that he doesn't - I don't know.

There is an attitude here that the Marginalia should just be accepted as it is and that anyone who doesn't has a hidden agenda or wishes to make surreptitious accusations against individuals - using innuendo.
I don't see any innuendo - I see a blinkered and blasé approach to the handling of historical documents.

[Roy Corduroy]

This thread encapsulates what I see all the time here on Casebook. Posters who come here just to tell us they are against the police, the authorities, the establishment. Like I care.

It's a cyber version of a 1960's sit in. You know where everybody is chanting down with the pigs, they are all wearing love beads, and no one's had a bath in a week.

Roy

[Rob Clack]

I am all for questioning documents, but there are ways of going about it. Keeping an open mind and knowing your subject would be a good place to start. I am seeing none of either with the anti marginalia brigade.

Rob

[Ally]

Hunter
I think Ruby was seeking to establish that Jim Swanson could have been the sort of person who could have been capable of engineering a slightly sophisticated forgery ."

Could have been the sort of person who could have... Wow there's some concrete facts. And she didn't say "could have" she said she believed he was.

At least she had the conviction to make a definite statement rather than a weaselly one, though I don't find her supports for her opinion at all compelling.

Why are names named?
Why is the way something may have been forged gone into?

Only because the defenders of the Marginalia demand it.

Because it's weaselly to throw out smears and just let them fall on everyone because you lack the sack to make a definitive statement? You think it's better to smear six people than one?

Why is the way something may have been forged gone into? Are you insane? YOu can't just make an accusation of a crime and refuse to discuss how it could have been carried out. Well a crime WAS committed but who cares how it was managed to be accomplished? Seriously, WTH??

It should be sufficient to point out flaws in the testing process and suggest that other avenues for enquiry should be pursued to close off these loopholes.

Only if you live in la-la-land where you actually think smearing an entire group of people and then failing to provide support, doesn't actually matter.

There is an attitude here that the Marginalia should just be accepted as it is and that anyone who doesn't has a hidden agenda or wishes to make surreptitious accusations against individuals - using innuendo.
I don't see any innuendo - I see a blinkered and blasé approach to the handling of historical documents.

Oh bullcrap once again. There is nothing in this thread but surreptitious innuendo. Time has progressed since 2006 when these questions were first raised.

While it was entirely plausible to think a single man might have forged a single line prior to last year, in order to make it plausible now we must include an entire cast of forgers and accomplices in order for this ruse to now be propped up. In short, it fails the plausibility test.

One to forge the line. One to forge the article. One to sneak it into the Crime museum. One to luckily discover it (though the last two could be the same person). It's just not credible at this point. Especially when no actual gain from all these people has been established.

[Rubyretro]

Yes, I retract the bit about Jim and Evans, Ally. You are quite right.

Otherwise I stressed that my post was only based on personal opinion. I broke down exactly what written information I was basing that opinion on.

People were asking what motives there might be for forging the Marginalia, and I gave some straight honest opinion.