Private sale

[Ally]

Fisherman,
Before I respond at length, I am on a mobile device, can you please state where precisely YOU got the idea that upward stroke shakiness was a prevalent aspect of Parkinson's exemplified in most patients?

Will repsond when I am on a non-mobile.

[Chris]

If I were a naturally rude person I could accuse you of slithering bluster to cover up a facile and convoluted argument, and other such things.

I wouldn’t do that ...

That's better. That's funnier.

[Lechmere]

Cog
I don’t agree that a professional would be so specific as to pluck ‘neurological conditions, such as parkinsonism’ out of thin air when he could have just ascribed the tremor to old age.
I don’t think for a second that Dr Davis would conflate a condition that is accompanied by severe loss of faculties with a minor physical difficulty.
Dr Davis was not writing his report for an average person. It was essentially an internal report not for public consumption.
If I were a naturally rude person I could accuse you of slithering bluster to cover up a facile and convoluted argument, and other such things.

I wouldn’t do that, partly because I like to think I am not naturally rude, but also because on occasion I get a mild amount of enjoyment out of discussing various ‘Ripperological‘ topics with you and it would tend to sour things.

It isn’t perverse to suggest that Jim Swanson did not just mean mental faculties – simply because he chose to use the expression ‘all his faculties’. People do talk in that way all the time.

You could ask me if I had ever broken my leg and I might reply that I had never broken any of my limbs – which would imply arms and legs even though the context might superficially just suggest legs.

If you read Dr Davis’ reports there is not the slightest hint that he considered the supporting documents as anything else but the ‘known writing of Swanson’.
He refers to the supporting documents as ‘the known writing’ and the Marginalia as [I]‘the questioned writing’[/I].
You contention that you ‘think it unlikely that he did not consider the provenance of the supporting documents’ is completely unsupported.

The reason I don’t think Jim Swanson simply stuck the letter over the inscription in error was because he stuck a letter from Anderson over an inscription that was blatantly from someone else. I do not think that Jim Swanson was stupid.

In any case all that I am actually suggesting is that there are strong grounds for suspicion that Jim Swanson was trying to create a false impression. It cannot be proved at this juncture.

These grounds for suspicion should lead an investigator to take seriously the possibility that a real effort may have been made to copy DS Swanson’s handwriting. This was not the case in Dr Davis’ second report.

[Chris]

Needless to say this is just another cloud hanging over the DS Swanson story.

Actually, it's not "needless to say" at all. I wish you would explain yourself. It's certainly a shame the documents have gone missing, but why should it be a 'cloud', and what exactly do you mean by that?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

The only cause that Dr Davis mentioned with respect to the tremor was ‘a neurological condition such as parkinsonism’. I have explained many times my opinion that it is very unlikely that Dr Davis would have just randomly picked that condition out of the hat, when he could have chosen a much more mundane condition and one that had many fewer ramifications.
Therefore yours and Ally’s experiences have no bearing on the matter. Nor has me mistyping something when quickly responding on here.
That is my opinion. I think it is a rational and logical opinion.

I think if you asked an average person the name of a condition causing a tremor, more would probably mention Parkinsons than any other...therefore to me it seems that Parkinsons itself would be the mundane answer you mention...

Jim Swanson did claim that DS Swanson retained all his faculties to the end. True it was in the context of talking about memory. You, or anyone else, can chose to interpret that as ‘mental faculties’. I chose to interpret the word ‘all’ as meaning ‘all’. I think that is a logical and rational opinion.

So you readily accept that Jim Swanson was talking in the context of memory, yet choose to believe he meant something else. That's perverse.

The two things that he missed were that he did not verify the supporting documents – the documents used to verify the Marginalia (primarily the 1923 letter). Secondly he dismissed the possibility that the Marginalia may be the result of a slightly more sophisticated forgery than can be carried out by simply tracing.

I think it unlikely that he did not consider the provenance of the supporting documents, which is the key to their being accepted as genuine. The likelihood is that both this and the possibility of forgery (by ANY means) was at the front of his mind.

As for Jim Swanson – I suspect that many of the problems associated with the Marginalia spring from him ‘gilding the lily’. I wouldn’t go so far as accusing him of lying. By wishing to show his grandfather in a good light he over did various things – such as sticking the 1905 letter over the Fred inscription or suggesting that his grandfather had all his faculties.

How do you know he did not simply come across the letter and assuming it belonged with the book, innocently stuck it in there? Not everybody is as devious and crooked as you seem to feel they are.

But I personally am not satisfied with the situation this has caused. I do not think the Marginalia has been properly tested.

That is an opinion you are of course quite free to hold...but also one which, unless you are prepared personally to fork out, you seem unlikely to see fulfilled.

There is a rather obvious disharmony between Dr Davis’ suggestion (and he suggested parkinsonism – not anything else) and Jim Swanson’s reminiscences which also include his father threading flies (which is a fiddly job) and actually fly fishing in Scotland. This is not specious reasoning – it is logical reasoning.

I suspect he mentioned Parkinsons as a generic comment on a possible condition, (the "such as" tends to give it away)...as I mentioned earlier I have very shaky handwriting, yet unless very tired still maintain the physical dexterity to undertake quite fiddly tasks...Obviously I can't speak for anybody else, let alone DSS, but it proves, to me at least, that the one fact need not preclude the other.

What you have to understand is that this isn’t about proving whether or not DS Swanson had parkinsonism or whether his hands were as solid as a rock.
It isn’t even about proving that the Marginalia is a forgery.

No I rather think it isn't.

I'm sorry Ed but your reasoning does seem to be convoluted to say the very least

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

My guess is he glued the letter to create a false impression - but that doesn't mean he definitely forged the Marginalia.
But it should be a warning sign - buyer beware until the Marginalia is properly tested with a more sceptical eye than before.

I am also (it must be said) a little uneasy about those two documents going missing – the Warren Memorandum and the list of victims/attacks.

They are potentially financially valuable in their own right – possibly of greater monetary value than the Marginalia. The Warren Memorandum is much more historically valuable compared to the Marginalia as an insight into the investigation.

Jim Swanson claimed he had just discovered them in 1987, but they featured in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum documents that date – we are told – from 1981.

Should I add that neither had been tested or subjected to critical scrutiny prior to their disappearance?

Needless to say this is just another cloud hanging over the DS Swanson story.

[Chris]

The real question is: Did Paddington forge his own luggage label - and if he did, was he suffering from Shaky Paw Syndrome?

More likely Paddingtonism, I think ...

[Chris]

I have no axe to grinde -I'd just like to know the truth -why did Jim glue in that letter and try to pretend that the book was from Anderson ?

But did he try to pretend the book was from Anderson?

[Sally]

The real question is: Did Paddington forge his own luggage label - and if he did, was he suffering from Shaky Paw Syndrome?

[Rubyretro]

This conversation is all hilarious. Forget marmalade. There is still something not right about the Marginalia. I have no axe to grinde -I'd just like to know the truth -why did Jim glue in that letter and try to pretend that the book was from Anderson ? Is there one single thing independant of the Swanson family that suggests that DSS had a shaky hand ? Its easy and fun to take the piss but no ones given any answers to precise questions.

[Robert]

Lechmere, I advise you to publicise the faulty jar immediately. Even at this late juncture, there may be time for you to make amends and save the world of marmalade from chaos and mayhem.

I blame you for this, Lechmere - if only you'd wanted jam, this never would have happened.

[Stephen Thomas]

And not a gollywog badge in sight.

[Chris]

That was to Robert - I knew what your answer would be.

The reason being that I think you may be jumping to an unsafe conclusion. In fact I'm rather shocked to see you accepting surface appearances without conducting all the necessary tests and investigations.

The very first thing you should have done was to check underneath the Costcutter label to see if there was a Robertson's label there (assuming you meant Robertson's and not Robinson's). Even if there wasn't, surely the correct course of action would have been to take a sample for chemical analysis - preferably in three laboratories in different continents, of course.

[Sally]

Robert
That was the correct answer as you changed the words.

Stop press.
I went to see Paddington earlier than expected and he tried to sell me a jar of his Robinson's marmalade. Just before I parted with my cash the label fell off and underneath was a different label that said 'Costcutter Marmalade'.
I made my excuses and left.
I'm sharing this information just with you. Should I tell anyone or keep quiet?

Don't trust him Ed! I heard that his daily route to Portobello Meerkat could take him past several Costcutter stores. And have you ever asked him why he spends so much time with a foreign Antique Dealer?

That's confidential, mind you - the less you know, the safer you are...

[Lechmere]

That was to Robert - I knew what your answer would be.