Private sale

[Lechmere]

John
The purpose of the test was to determine whether it was a forgery.
If the test was in some ways flawed then it would be of limited value.
If you are singling me out for implicitly suggesting there were forged documents then in the collection then presumably you must also be suggesting that Dr Davies was suggesting the marginalia was forged otherwise why not take it at face value?
We have to be a little grown up here and accept that historic documents that appear in later years need to be tested without being inhibited by people saying
'are you accusing me of forging it'.

[jmenges]

The 'unhelpful friends' are specifically the forum attack dogs who try to shout down every criticism raised and who reduce the discussion to that more commonly seen in a school playground. And who by their antics only create a climate of suspicion.

Ah yes, the forum attack dogs. Always making life so difficult for the slithering weasels.

JM

[Lechmere]

I think we just saw one of the attack dogs.
Mr Menges who hadn't really got a clue about anything about me thinks it is clever to call me a slithering weasel.
That is the pitiful level that we have sunk to.

[jmenges]

I don't believe I named any names, Ed.

Fancy that.

JM

[Lechmere]

How old are you - 5?

[Jenni Shelden]

Time to explain

Jenni


I didn’t say that Marginalists per se have a hidden agenda –that paranoia again.
You are acting on this thread as a Marginalist – so that is what you are!
Is it an offensive term?
I think you are taking yourself too seriously there Jenni.

Hi Ed,
Yes, yes, I do take it as an insult or offensive term.
I take it as an insult when it is not an accurate description of me. I take it as an insult when it is implied that I am close minded about something and speaking about it purely to bolster it – as implied by the word marginalist.
I take it as an insult when someone uses a word in order to make some kind of point against me but never says what that is. Yet they are quite happy to repeat it, as though because they said it once it is therefore a fact. I take it as an insult when they then fail to explain exactly what they mean or back it up in any kind of evidence. I take it as an insult when it is expressed in a goading and belittling fashion.

In sum I take it as an insult when that is the way it was intended.

So I ask you again, to explain exactly what it is you are implying by using that word about me and indeed others and I ask you again to either back up what you are saying about me with some facts or retract it.

Unless that is, your sole aim is now to attempt only to belittle me because I dared to question your argument?

Lets try and stick to the facts shall we?

I'll be the judge of how serious it is that I take things and if that is acceptable with you, thanks all the same. You concentrate on backing up what you are saying with more than feelings.

Kind regards
Jenni

Ps calling someone an attack dog isn’t very nice either…who do you mean?

[Jenni Shelden]

- is the modern way of replying 'can't answer'; it speaks volumes

I cant see the post you are referring to Ruby??
thanks
Jenni

[Ally]

I think we just saw one of the attack dogs.
Mr Menges who hadn't really got a clue about anything about me thinks it is clever to call me a slithering weasel.
That is the pitiful level that we have sunk to.

So it's perfectly all right for you to disparage forum members with base animal analogies, but it's somehow out of bounds for forum members to do the same to you?

How do you not choke on your own hypocrisy?

[Rubyretro]

Blimey ! Do weasels slither ??

I have to go out again tonight, but I'll give you all my reasons for believing that the Marginalia is fake , tomorrow morning.

I don't expect anyone to be waiting..before you state the obvious...but I don't mind speaking in plain unambiguous terms.

[Chris]

Lets put this question of tests to bed because personally I am sick of you and Jenni keep asking the same questions about what new tests can be done.

The answer is probably no new tests although there is the graphite tests which may or may not be an option.

Thank you for finally admitting that.

[Trevor Marriott]

So I was going to go back and write individual responses to individual posts, but my god, my brain short-circuited from the sheer stupidity of the arguments being presented.

So now it is being claimed we should test the letter that was used to authenticate the Marginalia because apparently that is now being considered a forgery as well... and what precisely are they going to test that against? Another letter that they will then claim is a forgery and needs to be tested... against what, yet another letter that will then be accused of being a forgery and on and on into utter farce.

And the guy who has been banging on for years about an independent outside second analysis has gone to a freaking writing fortune-teller and wants to present that as "conclusive evidence".

I am all for questioning the Swanson Marginalia, it's something of a hobby of mine, but ye gods people, come up with some intelligent rebuttal. Stupidity makes my head hurt.

As is normal you seem to not read it digest posts before replying.

As far as the fortune teller you referred to she identified significant differences in the handwriting as did I
Nevil Swanson was made aware of these and was asked if he would allow the marginalia to be examined he declined

I then suggested to him that on the interests of everyone he allow it to be examined by an independent expert he declined that offer also staying that he was happy with the results of totty and Davies

Then out of the blue he is again approached by other parties who presumably advised him to get it re examined and what do they do invite Dr Davies round for a pot of tea and for him to carry out a half hearted examination in the front room. An examination that is flawed for the reasons stated and the report in my opinion is highly contentious.

Now everything is being made transparent those who advised Nevill are having to dig themselves out of big holes simply because everything that still surrounds this does not stand up to close scrutiny


Now clearly my initial findings

[Chris]

I have never said that Dr Davies acted in an unprofessional manner. You have real problems with comprehension. I said that it is quite possible that sub consciously he may have been swayed.

That's simply a lie. There's nothing whatsoever about "sub consciously" in the post of yours that I was replying to:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=275588#post275588

[Jenni Shelden]

Tests

Excuse me whilst I catch up, I hope I don't miss anything important.

On this thread I said the 1923 letter could be tested and the News of the World correspondence verified.
Did you miss that?
If the corroborative items are authentic then it lends weight to the marginalia being authentic.
Further
Dr Davies could be asked to clarify why he said in his first report that he detected signs of a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism in the shakey handwriting.
I reject your claim that I need to suggest tests anyway. All I have to do is point out problems with the conclusions drawn by Dr Davies (which does not involve innuendo) and suggest a valid way of having the documents re-tested. Which I have done.

Hi Ed,

No Ed, no I didn't miss where you said that. I missed where you explained what kind of tests you felt would be adequate to establish the marginalia's author as Donald Swanson/an alternative.

I take you want to establish first that the 1923 letter is written by Swanson, by what method, comparing it to what? What do you know about it to make you question its authenticity?

In terms of the News of the World letter - what is needed to be ascertained about this?

You have stated some issues you have with Dr Davies but you have not backed this up with facts. The only thing you have said is that you have an issue with him doing it in the living room, but you haven't really explained what affect you think this had?

I think if you look back you will see that I first asked you about what tests you proposed in response to your saying
"Jenni
I don't have a problem. I was just curious what was going on.
If I have a 'point' it is that documents of historical importance (this does not apply to classic cars) should be dealt with in a ‘correct’ manner.
Obviously it is easy for people involved in this field to overblow the importance of any document that relates to ‘Ripperology’ – but many claims have been made about the Marginalia (not least in the identification of Kosminski) and there is a degree of controversy attached to it.
When a document is sold from its original private hands it would not be unusual for it to effectively disappear. So that is a worry in narrow ‘Ripperological’ terms. If it was sold through a reputable auction house then some of those worries would disappear because of the checks that would inevitably accompany the sale, even if the marginalia did disappear into private hands never to be seen again."
Which you said on 22nd Sept post 38.

All my subsequent questions were based on a response to this, your worry about the checks that might be lost if it went into private hands again. I was basically saying I thought the necessary tests were done, what did you think was missing.

I think as you are you one casting doubt on the tests and saying the family shouldn't sell the document without more, you should be able to give some kind of indication as to what you would expect. What you think they should be doing? Its all very well to say they aren't allowing for tests, but what are these tests you are suggesting, do you see, saying an auction house would act in a certain way isn't fair. You don't know what an auction house would say do you, you aren't an auctioneer. Why wouldn't they accept the report of a totally legit forensic examiner who works for the Police?

If there are no alternative/extra tests that can be done, it is wrong to say more tests are needed, isn't it?

If you don't want to explain what you mean, in this case what tests should be done, then you shouldn't really say something in the first place. It means you put out a question mark and give no way of anyone being able to do anything about it.

Basically you are saying its ok to question something but its not ok to give an alternative as to what should be done.

Is that not fair?


Jenni

[Ally]

As is normal you seem to not read it digest posts before replying.

As is normal, you seem to only be able to construct a grammatically correct sentence when you are plagiarizing someone else's work.

As far as the fortune teller you referred to she identified significant differences in the handwriting as did I

And for all her or your qualifications she could be a gas station attendant therefore her opinion is irrelevant as is yours.

Nevil Swanson was made aware of these and was asked if he would allow the marginalia to be examined he declined

Are you allergic to full stops?

Now clearly my initial findings

LOL.. I find it hilarious that your brain apparently just could not bear up under the sheer load of waffling bullshit and just gave up mid-sentence.

Cheers.

[AdamNeilWood]

Then out of the blue he is again approached by other parties who presumably advised him to get it re examined and what do they do invite Dr Davies round for a pot of tea and for him to carry out a half hearted examination in the front room. An examination that is flawed for the reasons stated and the report in my opinion is highly contentious.

Now everything is being made transparent those who advised Nevill are having to dig themselves out of big holes simply because everything that still surrounds this does not stand up to close scrutiny

You really are making this up as you go along aren't you.

Perhaps you can enlighten us all with the chain of events which led to Dr Davies conducting his second examination, seeing as you obviously know the full story.