'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Natalie Severn]

'I was deemed to be an expert on drunkenness,'

I always felt we had something in common, Stewart.

So which is best Ap,to take up arms or sleep perchance to dream?

[Cap'n Jack]

'I was deemed to be an expert on drunkenness,'

I always felt we had something in common, Stewart.

[Robert]

Hi Nats

I thought that Martin was supposed to have made a special study of Anderson, but don't ask me.

Yes, I agree, university education isn't everything. How about Keats?

[Natalie Severn]

That's just what I mean, Stewart. When you were giving your evidence on the drunks, you were using your judgement and experience but you could, if pushed (and maybe you were pushed by the barristers) spell out the basis of your judgement. And so it is with everything. If we all had to read everything ever written about Anderson, then spend 20 or 30 years in the police force, then spend several years as forensic scientists, plus a whole host of other things, none of us would ever get going. That's why the boards are such a boon. If Martin were here now we could question him the way we question you. So what I'm trying to say is, specialist knowledge need not be incommunicable.

I dont really follow this claim by Paul that Martin is an "expert" on Anderson.As I undertood it Martin Fido is a Shakespearian scholar.Is that not the case? If it is then how does it make him "an "expert" on Anderson"? Has he had his thesis accepted in an academic institution on Anderson? Has he got an M.Phil or doctorate on Anderson/ Victorian Studies?
Not that I am suggesting that thats the be all and end all of a person"s knowledge or expertise,though Paul would appear to be saying it is. Talking of Shakespeare, he is someone who could actually be taken as a good example of a writer who had never had a university education,[though he had been well educated in the classics in Stratford Grammar School] but who appears to have understood the world, and human nature, at a glance, viz Hamlet"s monologue ,"To be or not to be" is still used by psychiatrists and psychologists to describe the conflict between rebellion and conformity,a state of mind that underlies much addictive behaviour. Shakespeare had never studied "psychiatry" as such, but he could be said to have had a very profound level of "psychiatric understanding"----a form of expertise surely?

[Chris]

Do I detect a note of personal grudge here?

If you're trying to give people the impression I have some kind of personal "grudge" against Martin Fido, you'd better explain precisely what you mean.

[Robert]

You need a prolonged discussion for these things, and I seem to remember Martin having to mark some essays or something.

I can't remember whether he was arrogant.

My attitude is, if something interests me, I'll stick my nose in, even if I'll never understand it (e.g. the General Theory of Relativity).

[Jeff Leahy]

Didn't we try that, in the thread entitled "Anderson - More Questions than Answers"?

As I remember it, Martin Fido's tone was very much along the lines of "Take my word for it", except that it was expressed in much more arrogant and condescending terms than that ...

Do I detect a note of personal grudge here?

And wasn't that thread ended because Martin went back to school?

Personally I thought there was some excellent stuff discussed on Anderson...

Pirate

[Chris]

If Martin were here now we could question him the way we question you. So what I'm trying to say is, specialist knowledge need not be incommunicable.

Didn't we try that, in the thread entitled "Anderson - More Questions than Answers"?

As I remember it, Martin Fido's tone was very much along the lines of "Take my word for it", except that it was expressed in much more arrogant and condescending terms than that ...

[Robert]

That's just what I mean, Stewart. When you were giving your evidence on the drunks, you were using your judgement and experience but you could, if pushed (and maybe you were pushed by the barristers) spell out the basis of your judgement. And so it is with everything. If we all had to read everything ever written about Anderson, then spend 20 or 30 years in the police force, then spend several years as forensic scientists, plus a whole host of other things, none of us would ever get going. That's why the boards are such a boon. If Martin were here now we could question him the way we question you. So what I'm trying to say is, specialist knowledge need not be incommunicable.

[Stewart P Evans]

Experts

Going back to Anderson :
Every field has its specialisms and sub-specialisms. Martin's an expert on Anderson. Stewart's an expert on police methods and procedure. Justifying a judgement can be virtually impossible. In the end, someone will say "You'll have to take my word for it - or not." But before that point is reached, progress can be made through debate and the citing of examples and counter-examples. That's one reason why academics have conferences. These boards are a perpetual conference.
That's why it's a pity Martin can't be here to discuss Anderson. I don't blame him if he can't manage it - life must come first. But it's a shame nonetheless.

Robert, there are authorities in many fields and I would consider myself as an authority in Ripper history. Being an expert is another matter. In a legal sense, as a police officer I was deemed to be an expert on drunkenness, I arrested dozens of drunks in my time and my evidence of expert opinion on the effects and state of drunkenness was accepted by the court in order to support a conviction.

Yes, I do know a lot about police methods and procedures and I have much practical experience in these things. I am unable to comment upon whether Martin is an expert on Anderson or not, although I do know I have some information on Anderson he has never seen. And I have shown how Martin apparently got it wrong in his assessment of Anderson's relationship with Henry Smith of the City Police. However, Paul has told us that Anderson 'has really only been assessed by author Martin Fido' and, presumably, Martin is the only person in a position to assess him because of the unique qualities Paul has told us that Martin possesses to do so.

Having said all that, having read the glowing reports that Paul gives Martin, and given the fact Paul has such faith in Martin's interpretation of the historical record, I am really surprised that Paul dismisses out of hand Martin's reasoning and assessment of his suspect David Cohen being Jack the Ripper. I know that Paul has, in the past, also accused Martin of making 'quantum leaps' in making his case. Anyway, it would be a dull world if we all agreed with each other about everything.

[Jeff Leahy]

As a matter of interest is it known whether Dr Davies full report will ever be released in full? and if not is there a reason?

Pirate

PS Thanks for your candid response Stewart.

[jmenges]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for your reply.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

Noble aspirations, Jeff - but those twin goals might militate against one another. </friendly observation>

And taken as such my old friend. Biting the hand that feeds is part and course as to whether your correct that is the journey.

Eyes open.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Questions

I've asked four times on this thread a similar question to you about Dr. Davis. How much if anything he knew about your questions before he made his examination, and if his published comments could in any way have been tainted by those raising questions. If he was told about a bumpy carriage ride instead of age and or another hand involved etc.
JM

Jonathan, as I recall you asked me a similar question when we were both in the chatroom and I said that all that I know about Dr Davies and his statements regarding the 'Swanson marginalia' is what appeared in the public press and is still to be found by doing a search on the 'net. I would not know him if I passed him in the street and I have never had contact with him.

I had nothing to do with the Swanson copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life being placed in the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard, that was, apparently, arranged by Keith Skinner. I do not know Dr Davies, nor do I know Nevill Swanson. I do not know if Dr Davies issued a written report, which I believe I have stated recently here, nor do I have a clue whether he knew of my own findings re- the annotations in 2000. I certainly did not mention a 'bumpy carriage ride' nor have I ever been in a position to converse with Dr Davies.

In short, the only person who could answer your questions would be, I presume, Dr Davies himself. As a forensic expert I am sure that he would tell you that his observations could not 'in any way be tainted by those posing questions' whoever they may be.

[Sam Flynn]

I am simply trying to get at the truth. My only interest is the identity of JtR.

Noble aspirations, Jeff - but those twin goals might militate against one another. </friendly observation>