Private sale

[Chris]

Do I care ?

Apparently not. In fact it's almost as though you have some kind of self-destructive urge. It's all rather baffling.

[Monty]

In tatters eh well I hadnt noticed it but if you say so, after all you are a self proclaimed expert with your bull lamp shining bright and you police records tucked under your arm I would say that makes you a really boring and sad person.

But you have a nice day !

I just cant see why anyone cannot take you seriously Trev, a plagerising, ex stripping liar.

You seem perfect in the role as expert.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Remind me, somebody - what is this thread about?

Fisherman

[Monty]

Remind me, somebody - what is this thread about?

Fisherman

You want the real reason or the fake made up one under which this thread was created?

Monty

[Fisherman]

You want the real reason or the fake made up one under which this thread was created?

Monty

Anything that has a remote connection to the original outlining will do. But nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Well the Conspiracy Cartel started it in an attempt to smear the Swansons.

So we are giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Unfortunately their members are some sort of bizarre species who thinks that being a deceitful thief who steals other people's work ENHANCES ones reputation in the field and then get mad when other people won't show them their work.

Now it's an exercise in watching the psychology of an as yet undiagnosed pathology.

The examples elicited so far are fascinating.

[Fisherman]

Well the Conspiracy Cartel started it in an attempt to smear the Swansons.

So we are giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Unfortunately their members are some sort of bizarre species who thinks that being a deceitful thief who steals other people's work ENHANCES ones reputation in the field and then get mad when other people won't show them their work.

Now it's an exercise in watching the psychology of an as yet undiagnosed pathology.

The examples elicited so far are fascinating.

I was under the impression that Edward started the thread. And resourceful though he may be, he does not make up a cartel on his own.

Apparently, though, no discussion about any aspect of the marginalia can be had, without things ending up in the ditch.

Please don´t take that as a challenge to any further sluggerfest; it´s a simple recognition of a simple fact, nothing else.

As for the actual outcome of the thread, I´m not interested at all. Adios.

Fisherman

[Ally]

Actually you know what, I've diagnosed the pathology. It's called BYHAW (Beating Your Head Against a Wall) syndrome.

Let's look at the symptoms, people and recognize we are out of our minds.

The Conspiracy Cartel, hereafter referred to as the CiCi's, has outlined this as the mode of a play.

Imply there is nefarious doings. When asked repeatedly, what those are, come up with feeble and completely off-the-wall charges that don't even make sense with a surface reading.

Demand more tests. AND DEMAND! AND DEMAND! When pressed on what tests, finally admit there's really no more tests that can be done, but the lack of willingness to do new tests is indicative of nefarious goings-on.

Demand their expert be allowed to analyze the handwriting analysis and claim that their initial examination has showed nefarious goings-on. When it's outed who their expert it, it turns out their own expert claims to not be an expert in the exact subject they are putting her forth as an expert in. Insist she's just as qualified, even though she says she isn't.

When caught blatantly lying about the qualifications of said expert, backtrack furiously and try a new waffling BS tactic and hope we are gullible enough to believe it was all a master plan, a ruse designed to elicit a response. A key CiCi is caught out in several lies and yet attempts to portray himself as the path forward to open and honest Ripperology.

Claims credit for someone else's work. This CiCi has previously been proven to plagiarize an entire book's worth of material from other authors and then has the gall to state that other's unwillingness to share their unpublished work with him is evidence of a conspiracy.



And then...after all this, we are still beating our heads against a wall thinking that logic has any chance of prevailing against that kind of impenetrable denial?

Seriously, folks, we are the crazy ones. There is no dose of reason strong enough to cure what ails the CiCis. I say we give them a board of their own and we corral them in there with each other, and we occasionally stop by to visit them, and we can point and show newbies, see look, this is what happens if you wander too close to the edge.

[AdamNeilWood]

I think Sandell was reasonably well known and I would guess that his death would have been referred to by at least one newspaper – but I do not know.

Charles Sandell wasn't even afforded an obituary in the newspaper he was employed by for more than 15 years. Not even one of those "Long serving News of the World man dies" short paragraphs.

I checked when researching the article.

Adam Wood published some of it in his Ripperologist article. None of the published correspondence refers to the fact that DS Swanson revealed the suspect’s name and I believe none of the unpublished correspondence from either the News of the World or the Sunday Express does either.

Would you agree that the letter below from the Sunday Express to Jim Swanson indicates that the suspect's name was indeed part of the Marginalia in 1981? I don't see how the identity of Jack the Ripper could have been established if not.

The letter also states that the newspaper would have examined the Marginalia and other documents to confirm their authenticity before publication had the information therein not have already been sold to the News of the World.

If only Jim Swanson had sold to the Sunday Express - it would have eliminated years of doubt and avoided a lot of unnecessary accusations.



.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually you know what, I've diagnosed the pathology. It's called BYHAW (Beating Your Head Against a Wall) syndrome.

Let's look at the symptoms, people and recognize we are out of our minds.

The Conspiracy Cartel, hereafter referred to as the CiCi's, has outlined this as the mode of a play.

Imply there is nefarious doings. When asked repeatedly, what those are, come up with feeble and completely off-the-wall charges that don't even make sense with a surface reading.

Demand more tests. AND DEMAND! AND DEMAND! When pressed on what tests, finally admit there's really no more tests that can be done, but the lack of willingness to do new tests is indicative of nefarious goings-on.

Demand their expert be allowed to analyze the handwriting analysis and claim that their initial examination has showed nefarious goings-on. When it's outed who their expert it, it turns out their own expert claims to not be an expert in the exact subject they are putting her forth as an expert in. Insist she's just as qualified, even though she says she isn't.

When caught blatantly lying about the qualifications of said expert, backtrack furiously and try a new waffling BS tactic and hope we are gullible enough to believe it was all a master plan, a ruse designed to elicit a response. A key CiCi is caught out in several lies and yet attempts to portray himself as the path forward to open and honest Ripperology.

Claims credit for someone else's work. This CiCi has previously been proven to plagiarize an entire book's worth of material from other authors and then has the gall to state that other's unwillingness to share their unpublished work with him is evidence of a conspiracy.



And then...after all this, we are still beating our heads against a wall thinking that logic has any chance of prevailing against that kind of impenetrable denial?

Seriously, folks, we are the crazy ones. There is no dose of reason strong enough to cure what ails the CiCis. I say we give them a board of their own and we corral them in there with each other, and we occasionally stop by to visit them, and we can point and show newbies, see look, this is what happens if you wander too close to the edge.

That what you and others would like keep out those who seek to challenge the old outdated theories which you and others are so ready to accept as being correct. Challenges which now clearly dispel many of those old outdated theories you and the others support, and that what really bugs you so you resort to name calling etc etc and continuous weak attempts at discrediting. Because each time you post you cant help resorting to the same old comments do us all a favor and change the record

You as do others in your clique clearly have no ability or perception as to what is evidence what are facts and how to assess and evaluate both.

Next time anyone from the cartel wants to play Sherlock Holmes perhaps they should seek professional advice first. Because they screwed up big time with the marginalia as we can now see.

[Ally]

See what I mean folks?

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm not following this thread at all closely.


Was the NOTW told the name of JTR in 1981 and couldn't be bothered to print it?

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni

I don’t think there is anything in the text of the Marginalia that a potential forger could not have written.

As Trevor said, mentioning the Seaside Home could be regarded as a clever ruse – an impenetrable reference that cannot be contradicted and can never be confirmed.
If it said the ID took place at an asylum, then we would know from the Isenschmid case that the medical authorities would never have allowed this.
If it said the ID took place at some location in Whitechapel then plausibly someone like Abberline or Reid would know – and evidently they did not.

Who is to say that amongst DS Swanson’s papers there wasn’t a reference to the Seaside Home in some other context?
In short the Seaside Home reference is hardly a stumbling block to the Marginalia being a forgery.

Regarding the annotations in Paul Begg’s book – of course they could be perfectly innocent annotations by Jim Swanson.

Similarly, of course DS Swanson could have written all the Marginalia.
Incidentally I’m not sure what you mean in post 311 by:
‘But all the marginalia shows is that is what Swanson felt’.

But both of these propositions are somewhat besides the point. The Begg book annotations and the details in the Marginalia do not disprove a forgery or prove a forgery.

The annotations in the other DS Swanson books could be evidence that he regularly annotated books – or it may have given a forger the idea to carry out a forgery, or they may also be forgeries designed to lend authenticity to the Marginalia. So again the existence of those annotations doesn’t really take us anywhere.

I think Sandell was reasonably well known and I would guess that his death would have been referred to by at least one newspaper – but I do not know.

The News of the World (with Sunday Express) correspondence comes from Jim Swanson’s files and the article found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum. All these items came to light in July 2011.

Of the correspondence from Jim Swanson’s file at least one letter was seen in late 1987 by Telegraph journalist Charles Nevin.
The first time an ‘outsider’ had seen the Marginalia was in late 1987 – apart from Sandell who had died in August 1987.
It might be that all or some of the correspondence from Jim Swanson’s files are genuine. They relate to Jim Swanson’s attempt to sell access to the Marginalia in 1981.
Adam Wood published some of it in his Ripperologist article. None of the published correspondence refers to the fact that DS Swanson revealed the suspect’s name and I believe none of the unpublished correspondence from either the News of the World or the Sunday Express does either.

I believe two letters from Jim Swanson mention the naming of a suspect– one to the News of the World from 1981 and one to his accountant from 1984. These letters are evidence that the suspect was named in the Marginalia prior to it being seen in 1987, so these letters could also be tested.

Then there is the document that turned up at Scotland Yard in 2011 – which consisted of an unused article and an internal memo both of which mentioned Kosminski.
It appeared out of the blue and there is no explanation as to how it got there.
There is a chance it could be a forgery that was planted there to ‘prove’ that the Marginalia mentioned Kosminski when it was shown to Sandell in 1981.
This document effectively proves that the Marginalia was complete – i.e. hadn’t been added to – when Jim Swanson approached the News of the World in 1981. In the context of the Marginalia’s authenticity it is quite an important document.
However the circumstances of its discovery are odd to say the least.

Just shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘I can't see any reason to think that all these sources are fabricated’, is a cop out.

Besides just getting a second opinion on the handwriting –which in itself would be a valuable exercise in my opinion – there are several untested lines of enquiry that can be used to authenticate the marginalia. The supporting documents.
Namely the 1923 letter that has previously been referred to.
The items that turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
The letters from Jim Swanson to the News of the World and his accountant.

Even possibly the ledger that was used to validate the Marginalia in Dr Davies first test.

Remember if it is a fake there are two possibilities:
All the Marginalia is fake but the entries were added at separate times and were all in place in 1981.
Some of the Marginalia entries are authentic but they were added too after 1981.

The thing is, when dealing with a new discovery such as this you have to be sceptical and probing – seeing if there are any suspicious circumstances, anything that doesn’t add up, are there potentially sinister explanations for things. It means not being ready to seize on every innocent explanation when there is an equally possible guilty one.
Feeling inhibited from suggesting certain items should be tested because it might imply someone has done something bad is really not an option.
Things should be looked at from all angles and anyone who has a document of this nature really should expect it to be tested and looked at from all directions and not take offence.

OK I know the Marginalia isn’t new now, but we are still in an unsatisfactory situation where questions have not been answered and issues are still unaddressed.

Hi Mate,

sorry, you seem to be mistaken about what i was saying.

I was not arguing about whether whats written in the marginalia could mean it was definately not forged. Of course a forger, if one existed, could write whatever they wanted. i was talking more specificially about the reverse, that is to say, that someone (Trevor i think) was trying to argue the historical person of Swanson (DSS) could not have written it.

I disagree that a forger mentioning a seaside home where an ID happening seems ridiculous is a clever ruse, that in my opinion, would be stupidity. There is nothing to say of course that a forger, should one have actually existed, wouldn't have acted stupidly. As you mention, its not a major point. I was merely offering my opinion on the matter being discussed, which i know you agree is fine.

In short, I wasn't arguing the Seaside home was a stumbling point to it being a forgery, but that it WASN'T one to it being genuine.


Re Paul's book sorry if I misread what you said as a suggestion Jim could have written the famous marginalia, from what you mention above, this isn't what you meant at all. My only point was that it was a chicken an egg situation, that is it could, as in is possible, show Jim liked to annotate books but equally, maybe he was copying his ancestor. You are quite right, i think, when you say, what Jim wrote in Paul's book was not relevant to the matter in hand.

Thank you for asking for clarity re post311. As I mentioned previously, I believe that Dr Davies report shows that the marginalia is written by DSS. In regards to its internal contents, the point i am making is that the marginalia is, as with Anderon's own word, his own interpretation/feelings on events. As Swanson doesnt say specifically what he means seaside home xxxxx, to say he meant one seaside home or another and what that means is a difficult task, one I have not tried to follow!

As Adam has just mentioned that Sandell didn't have an obit even in the paper he worked for (which he had retired from 5 years or so before, i think) and since the correspondence between the Swansons and him seemed to have ceased in 1982 or before when he left , I think that we can agree, that the marginalia being offered elsewhere was a conincidence, because of the centenary.

In regards to the correspondence. Those in Jim Swanson's posession involve a variety of different recipents, usually on headed company notepaper from the time period. It would be a big leap to suggest none of these could be genuine. The Express, NoW, an account, HM Revenue, an invoice (off the top of my head)

In regards to testing these type written letters, which as i've mentioned, i don't really see a reason to, despite what you are saying? I don't see what it would achieve? As you mention, would it tell us anything about the marginlia itself? The tests on that have shown it to be in Donald Swanson's handwriting. I don;t know how feasible tests are on typewritten materail, i've never looked into that before.

When I say i can't see any reason to think they are fabricated, i am referring to the look of those items reproduced, the type of item it is and the proveance of the item. I am not merely shrugging my shoulders. I think you will see that if you read back what i said.

I think that Keith Skinner would not refer to these items if he attached any suspsicion to how they were found, and he would have experience in archiving the Black Museum collection to know if there seemed to be anything odd. you mention suspiscious circumstances, but I don't think it needs to be read as though that is the only explanation. i have no idea about the black museum and its inner workings, how documents get to them and so on. Keith does, if he was suspiscious, surely, he would proceed with great caution, knowing him. Unless, of course, someone is going to suggest the somewhat ludicrious idea that Keith is in someway responsible for these items appearing, which I know that you were not, and of course, nor would anyone entertain such a ridicolous notion.

Therefore that is what I meant rather than that I just shrugged my shoulders.

Also, i seem to recall, though its not to hand, that Dr Davies looked specificllay at whether or not the line Kosminski was the suspect appeared contamporaneaous with the other enteries in that pencil and found no problem, which would mean that one option you mention is not possible.

Elsewhere up this thread, maybe you missed it, Adam mentioned that the 1923 letter came from a different source to Jim. Therefore it is of seperate provenance. Unless the Swanson family is counted as one source, in which case it is considerably more difficult to identify sources of DSS's handwriting.

In regards to the 1923 item, how would we satisfactiorily test this against other samples, when it in itself, to me a perfectly reasonable sample, has been questioned? Do you see what I mean, i didnt explain that too well?

I don't feel you should feel inhibited from suggesting anything. The fact is it has been tested, it can seem, to those who don't know you, that you are not satisfied until the answer is the one you want, obviously that isn't the case but, that's how it can look.

As I said before I feel the last report by Dr Davies addressed the issues to my satisfaction, obviously not to everyone's

Best wishes
Jenni

[Ally]

I was under the impression that Edward started the thread. And resourceful though he may be, he does not make up a cartel on his own.

Sorry I missed this reply as I was writing my own at the time. No he doesn't make up a cartel on his own. But he started this thread and made sure to mention his carefully guarded super-secret-squirrel informant who he refuses to identify. He wanted to make sure we knew he was acting in concert with others. Secret members and guarded secrets - voila! all that is required for claims of a cabal/cartel.

Definitive proof. I has it.

[Jenni Shelden]

That what you and others would like keep out those who seek to challenge the old outdated theories which you and others are so ready to accept as being correct. Challenges which now clearly dispel many of those old outdated theories you and the others support, and that what really bugs you so you resort to name calling etc etc and continuous weak attempts at discrediting. Because each time you post you cant help resorting to the same old comments do us all a favor and change the record

You as do others in your clique clearly have no ability or perception as to what is evidence what are facts and how to assess and evaluate both.

Next time anyone from the cartel wants to play Sherlock Holmes perhaps they should seek professional advice first. Because they screwed up big time with the marginalia as we can now see.

Please name the members of this cartel