Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Discussion: Jack the Ripper Opera - by etenguy 6 minutes ago.
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - by rjpalmer 15 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Supernatural Manifestations at Crime Scenes? - by Sam Flynn 34 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Jack leave his fingerprints on Mary Jane Kelly? - by Sam Flynn 40 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 44 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jack the Ripper Opera - by Sam Flynn 49 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lech versus Kos - (96 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (39 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Jack leave his fingerprints on Mary Jane Kelly? - (30 posts)
General Discussion: Jack the Ripper Opera - (8 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Supernatural Manifestations at Crime Scenes? - (6 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald

View Poll Results: In my opinion, The Swanson marginalia and endpaper notes are most likely:
Genuine 27 79.41%
Only partly genuine 4 11.76%
Not genuine 3 8.82%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-28-2011, 01:50 PM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

I did wonder about whether to make the poll open or private and did consider that some potential voters might be put off by the fact that the voters' identities would be shown. I decided on an open poll, reasoning that those who voted would not mind having their views known and, conversely, anyone not wishing their views to be known could simply choose not to vote. Also, as has been noted, I qualified the question with "In my opinion" and "most likely".

I think I may have blundered with the name of the thread though since marginalia is plural isn't it?

Best wishes,
Steve.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:38 PM
Stephen Thomas Stephen Thomas is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
My question still has to be how a pre-1981 faker could have known that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house and was sent to Colney Hatch. No one knew that before Martin Fido's discoveries in 1987, as far as I'm aware.
Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?
__________________
allisvanityandvexationofspirit
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2011, 03:31 PM
Colin Roberts Colin Roberts is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
But in 1981 no one knew that Aaron Kozminski lived in his brother's house, or that he had been sent to Colney Hatch. Are those meant to have been lucky guesses on the faker's part, or is he supposed to have secretly carried out his own ground-breaking Ripper research years before Fido's discoveries?
As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.

~~~

I tend to believe that the margin and end-paper notes were written by Swanson.

But, I am occasionally offended by the dogged insistence of some (exclusive of Chris) that the notes are of genuine provenance, simply because ... one says so; so much so, that in these instances, I am somewhat driven to assume the position that the notes are not of genuine provenance.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-28-2011, 10:27 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
Thanks for the link, Chris. Two questions, though. Why do you think that any possible fakery must have occurred before 1981 (I know that's when the book changed hands) and exactly when was the approach made to the News of the World?
Because Jim Swanson's initial letter to the News of the World, dated 26 March 1981, said "I have in my possession authentic printed & written information that names the "suspect," states why he was not brought to justice, and what eventually happened to him." To my mind this means there can be no question of the endpaper annotations (or the final sentence naming Kosminski) having been added after 1981.

For more details of the correspondence, see this thread:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5899
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-28-2011, 10:33 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Roberts View Post
As I have suggested before, Chris, it is entirely possible that Swanson, himself, passed that information along to each of his five children.

They, in turn, might have been compelled to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

I don't consider such a scenario to be at all likely, but I do consider it to be a viable catalyst for the generation of a 'reasonable doubt'.
Yes - I hadn't forgotten that suggestion, but I do think it is very unlikely, as are the "lucky guess" possibility, and the independent pre-Fido research possibility.

I suppose what I'm asking is on what basis people can say the marginalia are "most likely" to be either wholly or partly faked.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2011, 03:19 AM
Tom_Wescott Tom_Wescott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,676
Default

Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2011, 04:50 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine.

I assume they have to contend that it is a forgery/fake because if it were genuine it would rule out their pet theory.

So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).

I have seen NO evidence that would make me believe there was even a hint of forgery about the marginalia - quite the contrary as the material published in a recent thread illustrates.

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2011, 10:37 PM
Steven Russell Steven Russell is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 650
Default

Completely agree, Phil. But you can still believe that the notes are genuine and cling on to a pet theory. All you have to do is interpret the notes as Swanson merely expanding on Anderson's comments without fully endorsing them (not unreasonable), then decide Anderson is either lying or confused. Presto! The notes and your theory both emerge unscathed.

Rather disappointed at the number of votes cast so far compared to the number of views. Come on, Casebookers! All it takes is a click!

Best wishes,
Steve.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-30-2011, 12:11 AM
Colin Roberts Colin Roberts is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil H View Post
So often on this site it is clear that open minds are something of a rarity. Arguing to a predetermined conclusion is rife, and logical reasoning comparatively rare (though there are some clear and valued exceptions).
Hear ye!

Hear ye!

Henceforth, the record shall state that anyone that does not see the world, from precisely the same perspective as that of 'Phil H' is of 'closed mind'.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-30-2011, 01:54 AM
Dr. John Watson Dr. John Watson is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
Just checking in on the poll. I'm amazed that 4 people don't consider the marginali completely genuine. Is there any reason other than cynical doubt to suggest it was partly faked (i.e. the final sentence)? There's certainly no reason to suspect it was entirely faked, as Chris has pointed out.
I'd describe them as "most likely genuine," but two things have always bothered me. First, Swanson obviously intended his notes to be read by someone, else why initial the entries to insure they could properly be attributed to him? People don't normally sign or initial diary entries, for instance, or notes to themselves. Which begs the question, who was Swanson writing for? Who was his intended audience? And if he was hoping to add to the general knowledge of the subject, why hide the notes in the margins and blank pages of someone else's autobiography, presumably destined to gather dust among similar texts in a bookcase somewhere?

Curious John
__________________
"We reach. We grasp. And what is left at the end? A shadow."
Sherlock Holmes, The Retired Colourman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.