Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Swanson's Marginalia: Our Perceptions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Assessment

    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    No offence, Stewart, but good for you. You saw it, I didnít. You think itís somehow significant, I donít. Times were different, priorities were different, we are different people. As I said, there was - and is - no reason to suppose that the marginalia is other than what it purports to be. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog and is a dog, thereís not much to be gained from taking it to a vet just on the off-chance that itís a chicken. I was and am satisfied with the provenance, I know of no reason for supposing that it isnít genuine, even Dr Christopher Davies has said Ė twice Ė that the handwriting is probably Swansonís. Even you say ĎI tend towards the view that Donald Swanson did indeed write themí. My judgement at the time was that the marginalia is genuine, nothing has come along to so much as shake that judgement. Having established authenticity as best one could the next step was to examine the content. That's on-going. Back to work now eith a vengeance.
    Cheers
    Paul
    Yes, we obviously have different standards as to the assessment of potentially important historic documents. And, yes, it does matter. For we have now seen that my assessment was correct, as confirmed by Dr Davies, and caveats do exist in making an assessment of these notes, not least of all the fact that the endpaper notes might post-date the marginalia by 'some years.' This, of course, casts a totally different light on matters when compared with your, and Martin's, unqualified and unquestioning acceptance of something that has not been properly assessed in the first place. For my part I feel that the public, particulary Ripper students, deserve the ful facts when drawing their own conclusions. It's too late in the day to change anything now.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by SPE View Post
      Yes, we obviously have different standards as to the assessment of potentially important historic documents. And, yes, it does matter. For we have now seen that my assessment was correct, as confirmed by Dr Davies, and caveats do exist in making an assessment of these notes, not least of all the fact that the endpaper notes might post-date the marginalia by 'some years.' This, of course, casts a totally different light on matters when compared with your, and Martin's, unqualified and unquestioning acceptance of something that has not been properly assessed in the first place. For my part I feel that the public, particulary Ripper students, deserve the ful facts when drawing their own conclusions. It's too late in the day to change anything now.
      Okay, so now you are suggesting that your standards are higher than mine. You've turned my explanation into an 'unqalified and unquestioning acceptance', when in fact it was absolutely nothing of the sort. That's just word-twisting.There's no point in pursuing this.

      Comment


      • #63
        Perspective

        Originally posted by Paul View Post
        Okay, so now you are suggesting that your standards are higher than mine. You've turned my explanation into an 'unqalified and unquestioning acceptance', when in fact it was absolutely nothing of the sort. That's just word-twisting.There's no point in pursuing this.
        Not at all, did I say higher? Just different, many of mine evolved from a lifetime of collecting and evaluating the historical relevance and value of ephemera. I have, in fact, assessed and valued ephemera such as this for probate purposes. So maybe, in that sense, I have a different perspective to you.

        But others must read all there is on this saga and decide for themselves. Perhaps the fact of missing such discrepancies in holograph material like this and accepting it on face value is for the best. It avoids unnecessary contention and argument if the material is beyond any question as to its relevance and veracity. It certainly makes for a quieter life and an easier ride for any theories resting upon such material.

        But, you are right, there is little point in pursuing this as the facts are now in the public forum and there is a danger, I detect, of acrimony creeping in. We could both do with a quiet life at our age, and I'm older than you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Call that a bun fight?!
          I want me money back.

          Comment


          • #65
            We don't want to see the gentlemen quarrel..so again,lets let them iron this issue out if they desire to continue...unless of course they have already

            A.P...remind me to put some choloral in your cupcakes,old bean !
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

            Comment


            • #66
              Hi All,

              Apropos of nothing in particular, here are two examples of documents "signed" by DSS.

              The first is his 19th October 1888 report.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	DSS 19 OCT 1888 J.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	15.8 KB
ID:	548963

              The second is his 6th November 1888 report.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	DSS 6 NOV 1888 J.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	20.1 KB
ID:	548964

              Regards,

              Simon

              Comment


              • #67
                As You Say

                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi All,
                Apropos of nothing in particular, here are two examples of documents "signed" by DSS.
                The first is his 19th October 1888 report.
                [ATTACH]4634[/ATTACH]
                The second is his 6th November 1888 report.
                [ATTACH]4635[/ATTACH]
                Regards,
                Simon
                As you say Simon, 'apropos of nothing in particular...' These are but two examples of copy reports left on the official files. These reports are sometimes in the hand of the person making them and sometimes in the hand of a secretary (male of course) whom the high ranking officers would dictate to.

                There were no photocopiers in those days, nor were there easy ways of making copy reports. Sometimes a single report can be found that is in two different hands, this merely indicating that two secretaries, or amanuenses, have been used. All these, of course, are in the official files of the time and there is nothing suspicious to be read into it. Indeed, the '(sd)' indicates that the signature is not the actual person's, but is a transcription or pp.

                This being the case the things you are pointing out here bear no relevance to what has been discussed and I am frankly rather surprised that you have introduced them here. Truly I am left wondering what you feel they are 'apropos' of, and what the point is that you are making?

                Comment


                • #68
                  I concur with Mr. E that the thread could veer off course if we bring in unrelated documents and the like.

                  Back to the Swanson marginalia...and as stipulated,please keep the discussion free of personal insults. Do so by email or passenger pigeon...but not on the thread. Thank you...again.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    How,

                    But that's the primary goal of the majority - to veer off. If they didn't constantly veer off, imagine what would happen - something might actually get done.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Stosh:

                      When possible, when you get an opportunity, please elaborate on your views of the Swanson Marginalia.

                      The reason I tried to narrow the discussion to Messrs. Begg and Evans was not to stifle discussion but to prevent off-topic and peripheral comments from derailing the thread. I think that the issue of the SM is important and so do many of us as well. If it isn't important to some,I didn't want them to derail the flow or direction of the thread out of consideration of the many of us who want those two gents to discuss their positions on the Marginalia. I believe they, Mr. B and Mr. E, have said all what they have had to or will say....so please,at your leisure,please continue the thread.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        How,

                        I did not mean that you were trying to veer off by limiting the discussion. if anything, you were trying to keep it on track by having two prominent researchers in the field discuss it.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                          Hi All,

                          Apropos of nothing in particular, here are two examples of documents "signed" by DSS.

                          The first is his 19th October 1888 report.

                          [ATTACH]4634[/ATTACH]

                          The second is his 6th November 1888 report.

                          [ATTACH]4635[/ATTACH]

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Hello Simon

                          I would suggest that the one that is marked "(sd)" for "(signed)" is written by a secretary and not by Swanson -- you don't sign something you yourself are signing with that designation unless you are the Lusk letter correspondent and are writing "From Hell."

                          Chris
                          Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                          https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                          Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Which suggests the Lusk writer was a clerk or secretary of some sort, Chris?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                              Which suggests the Lusk writer was a clerk or secretary of some sort, Chris?
                              Very good, Sherlock.
                              Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                              https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                              Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I'm Sherlock.

                                RE: the Police CID that Swanson mentions, has anyone considered that it may have been they (City CID) who took Kosminski to be identified and then reported the results (as they subjectively interpreted the encounter) back to Anderson and Swanson?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X