There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[lynn cates]

committals

Hello Robert. Not so sure. I think the only large scale committals to mental institutions involve college professors. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe I'm being dense here, but does not the comparatively recent research by Chris and Rob, which indicates that Woolf Abrahams was Aaron's brother rather than brother-in-law, suggest that even laying aside arguments as to good character, forensic arguments etc, the marginalia are likely to be genuine? Surely a forger would have written "On suspect's return to his brother-in-law's house"?

I am not making a judgement on whether Swanson's and Anderson's story actually holds water, but am concentrating on the authenticity of the marginalia.

It has always been my view that the end paper notes ,written in a different coloured pencil and with different letter formation, are the ones that appear discordant---not the marginalia itself ---and I believe Stewart has presented a very sound argument for this in the past, quite similar to Ally"s a few posts back. But even accepting the "endnotes" as well as the "marginalia" as both being "probably authentic ", that last line,"Kosminski was the suspect DSS" seems to me to strike a rather incongruous note.
On the other hand,it has to be admitted, that some people do put their signature to their notes to themselves---and even date it.......so the jury is definitely still out on the entire handwritten additions to the text.

[mariab]

But even accepting the "endnotes" as well as the "marginalia" as both being "probably authentic ", that last line,"Kosminski was the suspect DSS" seems to me to strike a rather incongruous note.

Unless he had trouble remembering the foreign Jewish name, and remembered it at a later point.


Good luck to Trevor Marriott in obtaining the other copy of the 06 report – but I have to confess I'm more interested in the Special Branch ledgers.

To Lynn Cates:
College professors are a committed folk – in all nuances of the word. ;-)

[Natalie Severn]

Unless he had trouble remembering the foreign Jewish name, and remembered it at a later point

Hi Maria,
Yes,that a possibility----a sort of "Aha!" moment.


Norma

[mariab]

Especially with the name being difficult to remember for a Victorian Englishman and all.

[Ally]

No wonder McCormick has gone to ground, with the silly slobber that's being banded about.

Monty

Oh Bullsh!t. He apparently refused long before there was any "silly slobber being banded about". I mean let's not let the actual facts get in the way of our determined desire to hush up open debate. I mean silence and secrecy is where all good and honest things flourish best, isn't it?

I keep hearing that this shouldn't be discussed on the boards, but really no one has presented a coherent argument for whyever not. Then you get people saying "well no wonder mccormick won't allow it". Hello, he wouldn't allow it before. It has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion here. And frankly if people are so afraid of honest debate or open discourse, well that leads to further questions of what precisely do they have to fear? What exactly is everyone so afraid of? If having people question why he won't allow it to be seen is so off-putting, then why not put the thing out there? That would shut them up right quick wouldn't it.

If you have nothing to hide, then open debate is nothing to fear.

I realize certain people believe that their access to private information that they can horde for Ripperological status is a priority that outweighs all other consideration, but frankly, that's their problem not anyone elses.

It is absolutely false to think that anything real can be accomplished when only select individuals whose driving force is predominantly self-interest and protecting their own future gain are the ones we are supposed to entrust to be the keeper of the secrets; decide all the truths for us, and hand down their judgments on what is real, what is original and what is authentic.

If they are that afraid of people talking, then you really have to wonder why.

People are awfully quick to bash the internet medium. Mostly the seem upset that it allows for discourse by those they don't like and those who have the audacity to disagree with their particular brand of dogma. Books, documentaries, articles all come with the bias of those who write them. This medium is the only one that promotes free thought, free expression and open debate by anyone with eyes to read and brain to question.

And boy isn't it telling that so many people seem afraid of that?

[Chris]

... I believe Stewart has presented a very sound argument for this in the past, quite similar to Ally"s a few posts back.

I don't think Stewart has ever suggested that the last four words are a spurious addition - only that the differences in pencil colour and handwriting may be significant and should be taken account of.

[Chris]

Unless he had trouble remembering the foreign Jewish name, and remembered it at a later point

Yes,that a possibility----a sort of "Aha!" moment.

The same suggestion was made by John Ruffels a while ago - that he might have had difficulty remembering the suspect's name, but succeeded in doing so and wrote it down at the end. So the sense of the final four words might have been "Kosminski was the suspect's name!"

[Monty]

Oh Bullsh!t. He apparently refused long before there was any "silly slobber being banded about". I mean let's not let the actual facts get in the way of our determined desire to hush up open debate. I mean silence and secrecy is where all good and honest things flourish best, isn't it?

I keep hearing that this shouldn't be discussed on the boards, but really no one has presented a coherent argument for whyever not. Then you get people saying "well no wonder mccormick won't allow it". Hello, he wouldn't allow it before. It has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion here. And frankly if people are so afraid of honest debate or open discourse, well that leads to further questions of what precisely do they have to fear? What exactly is everyone so afraid of? If having people question why he won't allow it to be seen is so off-putting, then why not put the thing out there? That would shut them up right quick wouldn't it.

If you have nothing to hide, then open debate is nothing to fear.

I realize certain people believe that their access to private information that they can horde for Ripperological status is a priority that outweighs all other consideration, but frankly, that's their problem not anyone elses.

It is absolutely false to think that anything real can be accomplished when only select individuals whose driving force is predominantly self-interest and protecting their own future gain are the ones we are supposed to entrust to be the keeper of the secrets; decide all the truths for us, and hand down their judgments on what is real, what is original and what is authentic.

If they are that afraid of people talking, then you really have to wonder why.

People are awfully quick to bash the internet medium. Mostly the seem upset that it allows for discourse by those they don't like and those who have the audacity to disagree with their particular brand of dogma. Books, documentaries, articles all come with the bias of those who write them. This medium is the only one that promotes free thought, free expression and open debate by anyone with eyes to read and brain to question.

And boy isn't it telling that so many people seem afraid of that?

OK, lets address the one sided b*llocks that’s cropped up here, yet again, and hammer home some home truths.

You see Ally, the tactic of antagonising and provoking really is bearing fruits isn’t it? See how all concerned flurry towards the boards and provide the very information you and others are demanding……Oh, wait, they aren’t. Now why is that?

Maybe it could be because you are all coming across obnoxious and condescending? Hardly the best tactic when trying to eek out the facts. Its not about fear, its about common courtesy, open mindedness and a level head. You have an unfounded assumption that if people don’t discuss the issue it is because they have something to hide, they are fearful of the truth escaping. No, there are numerous other reasons more valid than that which could hold the reason, and I suspect it does in this case. Including the possibility people just plain don’t like yours, Trevors and others attitude and manner and refuse to engage likewise. Yes, boo hoo, they hate you, yet you carry on and get nowhere. And you will carry on getting nowhere unless you reform your debating style. Sucks doesn’t it?

Now this conspiracy of silence you keep referring to, especially when I post. Thank God Im not paranoid hey? The bottom line is that the book belongs to the Swanson Family. They are NOT obliged to release the book for further testing nor are they obliged to answer any queries placed here, in a documentary or in a House Select Committee. The same goes for the books keepers, The Metropolitan Police Crime Museum. They nor any of there employees are obliged to respond either. In fact Im not sure if they are permitted to post ANYWHERE upon matters of the force, however that’s by the by. They simply do not have to respond, and if they don’t then the reasons are numerous and not necessarily sinister . To suggest otherwise, especially when you do not hold the full facts, is nothing more than slanderous gossiping which plagues this field all to frequently, making it a mockery. I pointed that out that this debate will deteriorate (not that it started on a high level to begin with) when the opening salvos occurred over the weekend and lo, Monty is bang on yet again. How great am I?

Its all about attitudes and common decency, yet all I see on this thread is immature childish demands and unfounded accusations.

Apparently he (McCormick) refused? Apparently? You know this for sure Ally or not?

You still think you and Trev have a divine right to answers on matters which, with all due respect, have nothing to do with you or are your business?

People hoard privately simply because when they have shared (or seen others share) they have received abuse, absolute cr*p. Questioning is one thing however the aggressive nature of some of the questioning may suit your standards but, quite frankly, I really cannot be arsed with it. Many have shared and receive nothing but crap, and left wondering why did they bother. I am at that stage. I find it especially galling that those who often abuse are the ones who have bought nothing to the case in terms of research. Sucks for those who expect their information on a plate I know. Never mind, deal with it.

The silence if of your own making.

Monty

[Radical Joe]

I have asked the same question however answers have not been forthcoming.

Perhaps it's the way you ask them, Trev...

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps it's the way you ask them, Trev...

Whichever way or how you ask the question or questions and to whom there comes a point in time when you know that person or persons are deliberatly being obstructive.

There is more than one way to skin a cat !!!!!!!!!!

[Monty]

Whichever way or how you ask the question or questions and to whom there comes a point in time when you know that person or persons are deliberatly being obstructive.

There is more than one way to skin a cat !!!!!!!!!!

Depends on who is asking the question and if they have a right to the answer.

Monty

[Monty]

Temper Temper Trevor,

Thats no way to speak for a former Police Officer. True colours matey?

Your awarness of me, and what I have bought to the table is obviously minimal. Rather than bring discord, confusion, tamtrums, myth prepertraited as fact and downright falsity to the case I bring fact, evidence and reasonable thinking. Sure, I err, but I certainly do not portray myself as a Crusader for the common Ripperologist whilst holding a more personal agenda.


And what are you trying to do? I mean really. I mean really and truely. What answers are you looking for?

Monty

[Ally]

OK, lets address the one sided b*llocks that’s cropped up here, yet again, and hammer home some home truths.

You see Ally, the tactic of antagonising and provoking really is bearing fruits isn’t it? See how all concerned flurry towards the boards and provide the very information you and others are demanding……Oh, wait, they aren’t. Now why is that?

I am sorry, are you saying that Chris antagonized and provoked McCormick and that's why permission was denied?

Including the possibility people just plain don’t like yours, Trevors and others attitude and manner and refuse to engage likewise. Yes, boo hoo, they hate you, yet you carry on and get nowhere. And you will carry on getting nowhere unless you reform your debating style. Sucks doesn’t it?

Once again, are you claiming that Chris in his approach was rude condescending and arrogant?

Its all about attitudes and common decency, yet all I see on this thread is immature childish demands and unfounded accusations.

Apparently he (McCormick) refused? Apparently? You know this for sure Ally or not?

Well he didn't agree according to Chris. Maybe that was because Chris was rude condescending and arrogant to him.

You still think you and Trev have a divine right to answers on matters which, with all due respect, have nothing to do with you or are your business?

No I don't think I have a divine right to answers. But I don't believe you have a divine right to keep me from asking questions because you don't want to provide them. I have not been rude, demanding or arrogant on this thread. I have attempted as best as I can, to keep things as civil as possible. But people still claim oh, rude demanding! There was no rude, there was no demanding. There was merely questioning. So the idea that it's my tone and not my questions that are the issue is flat out balls.

The silence if of your own making.

Monty

[/QUOTE]

Well we shall see then. Because if it is true that Trevor Marriott manages to get his hands on this document, as brash a boy as ever came around, and he puts it out there for all to see, then so much for the Rippersaurs standing up there guarding their treasure trove.

Then where does all the "only handle this in private go". It's been private for YEARS and that hasn't produced results.

How long precisely are people supposed to wait silently, not asking any questions, mum? No sorry.

I categorically deny that this is about the attitude and not the questions. I have been NOTHING but polite on this thread in regards to the marginalia and the people who own it and possess it. I made one slip of the tongue, which wasn't even my meaning in the first place, and I promptly had it erased and apologized for it. My sole comment on McCormick was to ask why it had been denied.

So this continued beating of "it's your manner, not your questions" is flat out, total bullsh!t. It' s the questions. They just don't feel like they should be questioned and their word should be seen as good enough. Somewhere frozen in time is the place this personal pissing match started: when I dared to question the MElvin Harris entry in the A-Z long ago when I was newbish to the boards. What the record doesn't show is all the emails flying about behind the scenes telling me how it should be handled privately, I shouldn't be asking on the boards etc. What a load.

It's all about personal power, personal grudges and personal pissing matches. Some people can rise above their own ego. Some people can't. That's what it's really about.

[Ally]

The same suggestion was made by John Ruffels a while ago - that he might have had difficulty remembering the suspect's name, but succeeded in doing so and wrote it down at the end. So the sense of the final four words might have been "Kosminski was the suspect's name!"

The only way I can see that working, was if he had closed the book and walked away and then later remembered the name. It reads too much like a narrative, a story with a flourish.

So if we speculate that he didn't really "think" while writing the marginalia, couldn't get a hold of the "strange foreign name", then went away, had aha! moment and then decided to go back and write the strange sounding foreign named, spelling it completely correctly. I don't know. I suppose it comes down to would he have gone back at his "aha!" and actually written it down or just done a mental, that's what it was. I mean if the name was important enough to write it down, why didn't he wait to make his notes til he had it? And isn't it fortuitous he managed to spell it correctly, something he could barely remember a while ago.