Private sale

[Phil Carter]

And now the cavalry arrives greetings Phil.

Hope you have your tin hat at the ready

Hello Trevor,

Thanks for the welcome... I don't ride horses and only use tin hats for real bullets.. not caps from playground cap-guns.

Hope you are well :-)


Phil

[m_w_r]

I think you will find that Diane Simpson is very knowledgeable about the ripper case far more so than Dr Davies or Richard Totty.

But hey ho lets create a smoke screen to evade further discussion on the original topic which clearly is getting to some posters and rightly so.

Hi Trevor,

Just in the interests of total clarity, would you mind saying briefly:

a) Which Ripper case is Diane Simpson more knowledgeable about than either Davies or Totty?

b) How have you been able to measure Davies and Totty's knowledge of the case (whichever case you're referring to)?

Regards,

Mark

[Ally]

I find this thread so fascinating in that it reveals so much about the inner workings of people's moral compass.

Am I the only one boggled by the notion that some people believe it's perfectly acceptable to be a plagiarist, but it's beyond the bounds of decency to call them a plagiarist.

Fascinating.

[Chris]

That defence, on some points which I will not go into individually, and the veracity of such defence, has been an eye opener for me, personally.

Phil

I assume it was also an eye-opener to you that Trevor Marriott lied about a "handwriting expert" having provided him with "conclusive" evidence that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson.

Surely anything that might, with the benefit of hindsight, have been looked into earlier, or differently, or whatever, pales into insignificance in comparison with Trevor Marriott's blatant falsification of the evidence?

[Jenni Shelden]

I find this thread so fascinating in that it reveals so much about the inner workings of people's moral compass.

Am I the only one boggled by the notion that some people believe it's perfectly acceptable to be a plagiarist, but it's beyond the bounds of decency to call them a plagiarist.

Fascinating.

I hadn't thought about it like that

[The Good Michael]

I met this guy the other day who absolutely believes Hitler is still alive, his body and brain remaining active through secret, advanced Nazi technology. This man believes the government knows and is hiding the fact because they want to steal the technology once it's perfected. The rest of us think this is insane, and for us, there is no controversy.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Adam
I am not entirely surprised that the News of the World didn’t print an obituary for Sandell – it wasn’t a newspaper that was known for obituaries.
Where did you get the biographical details about him from that you used in your article – e.g. the date of birth and the exact date of his death?

The Sunday Express letter certainly is interesting and does require explaining for the Marginalia to be a forgery. It is the best evidence produced so far to suggest an early date for the Kosminski reference. That being based on without it being testing it is the least likely document to be a forgery.
Given that Jim Swanson haggled with the News of the World over the price I am slightly surprised he didn’t try and play the papers off against each other and have a bidding war. He could have at least asked the Sunday Express what they would have offered.

As for the 1923 letter to DS Swanson’s grandson Donald, the elder brother to Jim Swanson, I just found the reference to it in the 85 page thread on your article.
I presume Donald has passed away?
This would mean the letter was in Donald’s possession from 1923 and on his death passed to one of his children, who then I presume reasonably recently forwarded it to their cousin Nevill?
Along I think with a couple of other earlier letters?

[Stewart P Evans]

Who?

...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.

Who, exactly, 'screwed up big time'? And how did they 'screw up'?

[Phil Carter]

Phil

I assume it was also an eye-opener to you that Trevor Marriott lied about a "handwriting expert" having provided him with "conclusive" evidence that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson.

Surely anything that might, with the benefit of hindsight, have been looked into earlier, or differently, or whatever, pales into insignificance in comparison with Trevor Marriott's blatant falsification of the evidence?

Hello Chris,

Old saying from secret service manual training I once heard..never assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME. So I don't assume if I can help it.

I don't make comparisons on that basis either. By all means do so if you feel the need. I will not continually comment upon any individual, good or bad. This thread is littered with such comments. I am avoiding that issue.. WHOEVER it is.


Phil

[Chris]

Old saying from secret service manual training I once heard..never assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME. So I don't assume if I can help it.

I'm making no assumption at all - except that the posts on this site and jtrforums under the name of Trevor Marriott were written by him rather than an impostor.

[The Good Michael]

I'm making no assumption at all - except that the posts on this site and jtrforums under the name of Trevor Marriott were written by him rather than an impostor.

No way, Chris. No one in his right mind (key phrase) would go so far out of the way to make himself look like a complete tool. It's the work of forgers.

Mike

[Ally]

I hadn't thought about it like that

Kind of warps your head once you start doesn't it? Like:

A: "This is my best mate, Johnny"
B: "Isn't Johnny that thief who steals from everyone in the neighborhood?"
A: "Well, yes."
B: "That's awful! Thieves are such horrible people!"
A: "How dare you say such a thing! I won't besmirch my reputation by
associating with anyone so rude as you! Good day sir, good day!"


I'd think it was farce, but it's actually real life. I love Wonderland. Almost as much as Oz.

[Phil Carter]

I'm making no assumption at all - except that the posts on this site and jtrforums under the name of Trevor Marriott were written by him rather than an impostor.

Hello Chris,

That is a subject (Trevor) for others to debate.. I won't be dragged into it, or it's contents, which, to my eyes at least, has nothing to do with the thread's intentions or meanings.

If you claim to make no assumption Chris, why start your sentence with
"I assume...."? (re-printed, below)

I assume it was also an eye-opener to you that Trevor Marriott lied about a "handwriting expert" having provided him with "conclusive" evidence that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson.

I call that an assumption...which, as I said previously, I try to avoid if I can help it. Perhaps you can tell me how "I'm making no assumption at all... " marries up with "I assume it was also an eye-opener.... "
Maybe I am reading the two sentences wrongly and each should actually mean the same.. that no assumption was made by you? Doesn't matter really in the long run anyway.

I have no axe to grind with you Chris... it is my personal opinion that the continual personal comments against any one individual, whoever it is, has nothing to do with the intention of the thread starter. Just my opinion.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Poor photo copy

Surely anything that might, with the benefit of hindsight, have been looked into earlier, or differently, or whatever, pales into insignificance in comparison with Trevor Marriott's blatant falsification of the evidence?

Hello Chris,

I will stick to the thread and not compare situations if you don't mind.

On the subject of what "pales into insignificance", I feel I have a really good question or two that you may be able to answer.

Exactly whom advised and/or helped Jim Swanson to get in a Met Police document examiner and then supplied a poor photo copy of the "evidence" for said document examiner to look at?

I am not going to assume that Jim Swanson contacted said examiner himself, took said photo copy himself and posted it off to said examiner himself... but looking at this logically, it would seem Jim Swanson took advice from inside the field of Ripperology when dealing with all of this. It would not surprise me to learn that a person with the field also acted as a go-between for Jim swanson and a member of the Met Police, in able for said document examiner to participate and contribute.

It would also not suprise me that a person within the field acted as go-between between the Swanson family and the Met Police Museum either, considering the situation of how this item was presented as the "answer" to the "JTR" question by said museum to it's visitors, and blatantly used to promote the remake of the museum at a later date as well. Perhaps only introductory initially? I have no idea? Have you?

It would not surprise me because I find it a logical process for this to happen in this way and I will not assume otherwise, because we have not been presented with direct communication examples between Jim Swanson the document examiner from the Met Police, nor the Swanson family and the Met police museum. Therefore one must never assume, I believe.

So, as you seemingly (from reading many of your posts on the subject, I might add) have a penchant for the want of the naming of names... just exactly who was involved in the handing over of a poor photo copy of the "evidence" to a Met Police document examiner? Just who was involved in the later use of the museum?

It would not be surprising to find someone, or some people, who knew the Met Police and or museum well enough to have been involved.

Quite logical to think that way... but who Chris? Perhaps if you don't know, someone else knows the answers to these questions?



Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Exactly whom advised and/or helped Jim Swanson to get in a Met Police document examiner and then supplied a poor photo copy of the "evidence" for said document examiner to look at?

I am not going to assume that Jim Swanson contacted said examiner himself, took said photo copy himself and posted it off to said examiner himself... but looking at this logically, it would seem Jim Swanson took advice from inside the field of Ripperology when dealing with all of this. It would not surprise me to learn that a person with the field also acted as a go-between for Jim swanson and a member of the Met Police, in able for said document examiner to participate and contribute.

Jim Swanson never had contact with a document examiner from the Met. If you mean Dr Richard Totty, he was Assistant Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory.

The photocopies - no mention of them being 'poor' quality - were given to Totty by Paul Begg when he and Jim Swanson were working with Totty on a TV programme together.

It would also not suprise me that a person within the field acted as go-between between the Swanson family and the Met Police Museum either, considering the situation of how this item was presented as the "answer" to the "JTR" question by said museum to it's visitors, and blatantly used to promote the remake of the museum at a later date as well. Perhaps only introductory initially? I have no idea? Have you?

The chain of events which led to the Swanson family making contact with the Crime Museum was outlined in my article:

On 24 April 2006 Keith Skinner was conducting research at the Metropolitan Police Historical Collection at Charlton when, in the absence of Maggie Bird, the Manager of the Collection, he answered a telephone call which by amazing coincidence was from Nevill Swanson. Nevill was attempting to find information on a gun, allegedly presented to Donald Sutherland Swanson in 1882, which was being advertised for sale on the Internet. They discussed Keith’s past association with the Swanson family, and during the course of the telephone call Keith suggested that The Lighter Side of My Official Life, along with other Swanson material, be looked after by the Metropolitan Police Historical Collection.

Nevill wrote on 3 May 2006 to say that after discussion with the rest of the Swanson family it had been agreed that it would be appropriate to loan The Lighter Side of My Official Life on an open-ended basis to the Crime Museum, as per Keith’s later suggestion. In the meantime, the Museum’s Curator Alan McCormick had expressed his keenness to tie in the presentation of the book with the relaunch of the Museum. This took place on 13 July 2006, and was attended by several journalists, who mistakenly thought that the Marginalia represented new evidence. As a result, as the only Ripper expert in attendance Keith found himself answering questions which had been discussed some 19 years previously, and was quoted in the following day’s newspapers concluding: “The Swanson Marginalia produces as many questions as it does answers.”

Keith recalls:

At that time I was helping Alan McCormick to refurbish the Crime Museum and it subsequently occurred to me that Lighter Side might sit neatly as a Ripper exhibit in the Crime Museum, there being absolutely nothing else on display! Alan agreed. I didn’t even know it was going to be used as a vehicle to relaunch the Crime Museum. I knew there was going to be a little informal ceremony where the Swanson family officially handed over the book to the Crime Museum as custodians on a loan basis, but I had absolutely no idea that this was to coincide with the relaunch and was staggered when I arrived at Scotland Yard to see it besieged by the press and media!

No conspiracy, no pushing of the Marginalia by any Ripperologist... it was the Crime Museum's then Curator, Alan McCormick, who was keen to tie in the loan with the Museum's relaunch.