a thread entitled "The marginalia is kosher" gets 50 posts in a single day. Until then im quite content on seeing conspiracy theorists getting into a lather over highlighted text in a book.
Enquiring about the red lines is legitimate, surmising anything else is getting into Trevor Marriot la-la land.
Chris Phillips wrote:
No - there is a red vertical line in the margin, but the underlining is in pencil.
So we can't even assume that these were done by the same person at the same time. I insist that the SPE photo from 2000 is the historically accurate document, and that the recent documentary frames (in HD) can be useful in consulting only due to a possibly better resolution. I wonder if the underlying (of the printed text) on p. 137 was already present on the 2000 SPE photo. But I assume not, otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up by Don?
Many thanks to John Bennett for posting a photo of p. 137.
I apologize, but I can't seem to refrain from laughing when considering the “defacing“ in question. The underlying/coloring of the book is unfortunate, but if I were to make a list of all important archival documents (and I don't only refer to printed books, which are easier to preserve/restaure) on which I've encountered similar markings, the list would take up dozens of pages.
Storm in a teapot, anyone?
I wasn"t suggesting such handwriting tests should be done-or even need to be done.What I was pointing out was that forensic handwriting tests would be able to separate out what lines were drawn over the original ones----if that ever became necessary,
Originally Posted by Chris
The first two lines of the paragraph appear to be underlined twice, and I assume the suggestion is that the ruled lines have been added since Stewart took his photos.
Originally Posted by John Bennett
We can't really know until we've seen an older photo of p.137, I suppose. All the pictures I've seen just concentrate on pages with notes on them.
That's exactly how it looks to me, as Chris says, that someone added another line to Swanson's original underlying. Very unfortunate and stupid, and it most certainly qualifies under “tampering“ with an important original source (Swanson's underlying), but, as already noted by others, legally it's their book, and they can mark it and loan it around.
I'm not surprised that most older photos available concentrate on the pages with marginalia on them.
Hello Norma (Natalie),
I know you weren't suggesting a “forensic“ investigation. What I was trying to stress is that another “independent“ handwritting specialist with no particular knowledge in Ripperology might end up doing more harm than good, as he might turn up being unnecessarily self-important and a drama queen, resulting in another “inconclusive“ examination, which would further instigate confusion and accusations on the boards.