Private sale

[Chris]

Actually, Lechmere, if you're so keen to discuss the Marginalia, there was one point I made - it seems like aeons ago, but was probably only a couple of days - which seemed rather to stump you.

You thought it was strange that Jim Swanson should get the date of publication of Anderson's book and the author of the inscription wrong, and suggested that might point to the draft News of the World article being a fake (an idea about on a par with the moon being made of cheese, I hasten to add).

But even if the idea wasn't so intrinsically outlandish, how would it solve the problem of the error over the publication date? Because the faker would then be responsible for precisely the same error. And do you really think it likely that this hypothetical faker - mentioning no names, but we're looking at someone with access to the Swanson documents, someone conversant with the official records of the case, and someone so well connected they were able to plant a fake document in the Crime Museum within New Scotland Yard - do you think it remotely credible that this person would not know the date when Anderson's book was published?

Who do you think would be more likely to make a mistake over that date: Jim Swanson in 1981 (who, for example, thought that Anderson had been the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) or this (hypothetical) prominent Ripperologist?

[Cogidubnus]

I just realised - that was one of my smart phone typos.
I was with Paddington Bare.

Ah...a Tumblety moment

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

I just realised - that was one of my smart phone typos.
I was with Paddington Bare.

damn beaten to it

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Ed, but I thought this was what you and Trevor had been doing throughout, reinforcing your arguments by "strengthening" the evidence

All the best

Dave

The evidence doesn't need a lot of strengthening the discrepancies are there for all to see but some cant seen because they don't want to see.

[Cogidubnus]

Originally Posted by Jenni

Jenni
Which one isn't sitting in their underpants?

Paddington Bear

Shouldn't that be Paddington bare?

All the best

Dave

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
Which one isn't sitting in their underpants?

Paddington Bear

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Which one isn't sitting in their underpants?

[Lechmere]

Scanning back through random pages I see one liners and misdirected quips.
Apart from that mix up over the Anderson letter when you thought it was stuck in place in 1987. Oh and your misunderstanding of the significance of Dr Davis only mentioning parkinsonism.

[Jenni Shelden]

Day 13 on the Private Sale Thread
Jenni is in lounge feverishly reading the thread whilst listening to the music of Cher Lloyd.
Chris is typing question marks.
Lechmere and Paddington Bear are listening to Elvis's greatest hits and eating marmalade sandwiches.
Ally is switching to a non mobile device to provide better service.
Sally is increasing her estimations.
Fishman is looking for someone to tie his fishing line for him.
Nemo wonders why his suggestion to all chip in, which he asked 12 days ago went unnoticed.

In the bathroom, several people are talking...


Jenni

[Chris]

Jenni
Chris
He knew

Well, the fact that it directly followed my post and it wasn't addressed to anyone else was a kind of a clue.

But it is rather a strange thing to say, unless you've been asleep for most of the thread - and typing in your sleep. Actually, come to think of it, that would explain quite a lot.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
Chris
He knew

I think Chris has addressed the issues several times in the billon millon pages we are on now.

I don't think implication otherwise is fair,

Jenni
ps Paddington says hi

[Chris]

Who are you referring to?

I suppose it might be Paddington Bear or Elvis or - who knows?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Chris
He knew

[Jenni Shelden]

I see you are sticking to your policy of never addressing any of the issues raised about the Marginalia.

Who are you referring to?

[Cogidubnus]

Sauce for the Goose

I don't think it is feasible to add bits in at will to suit your argument.

Sorry Ed, but I thought this was what you and Trevor had been doing throughout, reinforcing your arguments by "strengthening" the evidence

All the best

Dave