Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

The point you seem to be making is that Paul Martin and Keith failed to correctly identify the authenticity of the Marginalia. Or at least failed to do so properly.

Paul admitted some time ago on JtRforums that he had not noticed the colour difference. However in his defense it must be noted that no-one else at the time including Martin and Keith raised the point or seemed to notice it either.

Having spoken to Paul about this, again some time ago, my understanding was that they did what they thought correct at the time. One must presume that the examiner was happy to confirm the authenticity via a photocopy or he would not have done so.

You seem to be suggesting that they should have insisted on a full written report and this would be normal procedure or practice in such a situation?

I’m simply unclear what that ‘best practice’ should have been. Are there any written rules or guidelines on the subject?

Or were these guys simply in new and uncharted territory?

As the book at that time belonged to Jim Swanson it may simply not have been possible to undertake the same examination that Dr Davies undertook. I do not know but I am fairly confident in Paul's honesty and integrity.

Are you suggesting deliberate deception on the part of Skinner, Fido and Begg?

Are you saying that they failed to follow standard practice or procedure?

Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence? Which seems rather unfair given that their initial examination and conclusion appears to have been, on the whole, held up by Dr Davies. Who simply provides us with further detail. But confirms it was probably written by Swanson

Yours Pirate

PS: Some others have said that he wouldn't have signed off as 'D.S.S.' but he does so on page 138 of the annotations and he may well have been in the habit of doing so, such a thing is not unknown.

Yes my understanding is that there are other examples of Swanson writing marginalia and this one, while somewhat longer, is not out of keeping.

[Stewart P Evans]

Despicable

...
Are you suggesting deliberate deception on the part of Skinner, Fido and Begg?
Are you saying that they failed to follow standard practice or procedure?
Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence? Which seems rather unfair given that their initial examination and conclusion appears to have been, on the whole, held up by Dr Davies. Who simply provides us with further detail. But confirms it was probably written by Swanson
Yours Pirate

This is an absurd and despicable posting. I have merely stated facts. I refuse to have any further communication with you.

[Tom_Wescott]

Or are you simply accusing them of incompetence?

You mean like not even paying attention to what you're sending in for study, thereby randomly grabbing a completely different memorandum for comparison to somebody else's handwriting?

Certainly not!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Fair enough Stewart. However the FACTS you posted seemed to be indicating one of those three possibilities.

I simply believe in calling a Spade a spade and getting to the bottom of things.

Better out than in.

Pirate

[Monty]

Need a spoon Jeff?

[Jeff Leahy]

You mean like not even paying attention to what you're sending in for study, thereby randomly grabbing a completely different memorandum for comparison to somebody else's handwriting?

Certainly not!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, it doesn't look good on the old chap. However, whom amoungst us hasn't made an error or simply made a simple mistake at some time?

The important thing is to own up and take responsibility for your actions and that is what Paul appears to have done.

Pirate

[Chris]

Fair enough Stewart. However the FACTS you posted seemed to be indicating one of those three possibilities.

It's bad news for Begg, Fido and Skinner if you - of all people - think that the FACTS indicate deliberate deception on their part!

But clearly Stewart hasn't implied he thinks any such thing, and I can't believe it's in the interest of anyone concerned for you to try to give people the impression he has.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m just posing some questions, SPE if free to refute them.

However if everyone is very upset by the question we’ll cross the ‘deliberate deception’ off the list.

Although you all seemed quite happy to make the same ‘Possibility’ when talking about Swanson’s children. And they are not here to defend themselves.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I’m just posing some questions, SPE if free to refute them.

What does it say of your motives that your questions require refutation instead of good old fashioned answers? I think it's time you find another dead horse to pummel into glue, PJ.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Although you all seemed quite happy to make the same ‘Possibility’ when talking about Swanson’s children. And they are not here to defend themselves.

You really are the most contemptible kind of troublemaker.

You know perfectly well that no one here has made any kind of accusation of wrongdoing against any member of the Swanson family.

[Jeff Leahy]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Pirate

[Chris]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Well, if you think I've been discussing that scenario, you really are clueless, because I don't believe I've even mentioned it!

How dare you try to give people the impression that "we all" have somehow been calumniating the Swanson family, just because one person put forward a hypothetical scenario in direct response to your repeated requests for someone to do just that?

[Jeff Leahy]

Fairly bear faced actually Chris, as that is the topic that sparked the entire conversation up and running. If you weren’t discussing it directly you must have been aware that any suggestion that the marginalia wasn’t genuine had attached implications. I don’t recall you at any point jumping to the defense of the innocent. Not that I’m suggesting that either you or SPE believe that its hoaxed because you have both clearly stated ‘Swanson Probably wrote it”

However I simply asked where SPE was going with his FACTS.

Which given there connotations seemed like fair play.

As I said, he was free to refute them, they were questions not accusations.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Pirate

............and to my mind that would have been a harmless scenario compared with a senior policeman,tainting forever the name of a defenceless and almost certainly innocent man with the heinous crimes of Jack the Ripper.
Aaron Kosminski,in his entire 30 year period of incarceration in an asylum,was considered "harmless" and not a "danger to others" by the medical staff who cared for him and noted this down.Aaron was never tried in any court of law,and in fact ,had no record of violence , his only documented appearance in a court of law was in November 1889 ,a full year after the JtR murders and was about him walking a dog "without a muzzle",along Cheapside that Autumn, when he was 24 years old.
So do you have some kind of hierarchy of comparison when it comes to injustices against the dead ,whereby Swanson"s family are sacrosanct whereas Kosminski"s family can endure the indignity of being branded relatives of Jack the Ripper?

[Chris]

If you weren’t discussing it directly you must have been aware that any suggestion that the marginalia wasn’t genuine had attached implications. I don’t recall you at any point jumping to the defense of the innocent.

You really are beyond belief. But I guess we knew that already.