Private sale

[Rubyretro]

Ruby, what else do you think was added?

Anything in shaky writing for starters. I don't believe that there is any evidence that DSS had a hand tremor. The photos don't suggest it, his hobby of tying fish flies doesn't suggest it, his obituary doesn't suggest it, and there is no mention that he had Parkinsonism. He wasn't that old when he died (about 76 ? -from memory), and I think that he died of a heart attack brought on by hardening of the arteries.

I think that we all know or have known people who have heart attacks due to the same problem, and they don't have a tremor due to that.

I know that DSS annotated philosophy books and fishing books as well. It would be good to compare his annotations in those books with the Marginalia ( if they still exist).

However, the 'Shaky Hand' letter appears to have turned up after DSS's handwriting had been identified as showing a tremor. It's not just showing a shaky hand, but drawing attention to it. Forgive me but it's terribly convenient ( just as Nevin's death was convenient).

I will be the first person to point out that it would be pointless for a forger to forge a shaky hand if DSS didn't have a shaky hand --but--maybe the forger had unwillingly trembled in the beginning and then had to explain it ?

Jim died aged 89 (I think -again from memory), and not all very old people are as dextrous as 88 year old Mary emailing from an IPAD. They might just have developed age related trembling. Especially if they were tracing individual letters, or concentrating hard on reproducing faint copies of them
in very delicate pencilled script on documents that they felt very emotional about.

[Fisherman]

I have only conjecture and no real proof...for example, he looked tired today. Also, when he got in his car, I saw him put something in the glove compartment. I can only say what I believe, but have nothing to show anyone. It's best I just leave it alone.

Mike

Itīs not conjecture that he put something in the glove compartment, and itīs not conjecture that he looked tired.
Nor is it in any capacity evidence that he smokes pot.

Surely, you - a logical, clever man - must have more behind your suspicions? A smell from the flat, seeing a transaction with a known pot dealer, something such?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Itīs not conjecture that he put something in the glove compartment, and itīs not conjecture that he looked tired.
Nor is it in any capacity evidence that he smokes pot.

Surely, you - a logical, clever man - must have more behind your suspicions? A smell from the flat, seeing a transaction with a known pot dealer, something such?

Nope. Just like the accusers in this thread, I just have a feeling. that's why mum's the word.

Mike

[Monty]

Hi Monty, hope you are well ?

I can tell you that I do have morals, and a sense of decency ! I wouldn't accuse anyone without having a genuine suspicion about the Marginalia, and I felt that after reading the Ripperologist article, and without knowing that other people had already raised concerns and accused it of being forged.

I am very interested to know what your opinion is on the glued in letter and the fact that the NOTW article appears to allude to it ( the mention of Anderson and the date 1905 can't be a coincidence), yet Jim Swanson undeniably knew that the book was published in 1910, and must have known that the book was inscribed from 'Fred' ? What is your explanation for that ?

I'm not saying that that is the only fishy detail, but it's a big sticking point for me.

Hi Ruby,

I am well thanks, I hope you are too.

Im sure you do have morals and a sense of decency, however this has been proven not to be the case with others. However, you accuse Jim. This is based on what exactly?

As for you question, Im going to dip out of that Im afraid.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Nope. Just like the accusers in this thread, I just have a feeling. that's why mum's the word.

Mike

Aha. Well, then; how are you going to prove a case that this Japanese fellow could not be a pot smoker from this meagre evidence?

Surely THAT is what is proposed, parallel to the thread content?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

Anything in shaky writing for starters. I don't believe that there is any evidence that DSS had a hand tremor. The photos don't suggest it, his hobby of tying fish flies doesn't suggest it, his obituary doesn't suggest it, and there is no mention that he had Parkinsonism. He wasn't that old when he died (about 76 ? -from memory), and I think that he died of a heart attack brought on by hardening of the arteries.

You know Ruby as you present yourself as someone with integrity, you really need to stop making wild ass assumptions based on no evidence. Like the fact that an 80 year old can't write email. How precisely would a photo show he had a hand tremor ?? What makes you think a hand tremor presents itself at all times and in all activities? What makes you think that an ability to tie fly fishing lines prevents you from having a tremor?? I have a hand tremor. I can still tie string and even sometimes thread a needle. It depends on how much exertion I have done that day prior to the event. You are just making stuff up that has no basis in foundation. Not all hand tremors are constant. Some only appear after specific exertion like trying to write with a pen, hold a fork, or "grasp" objects and use them. Some days I can eat with chopsticks, some days I can't eat with a fork. I am pretty sure my obituary is not going to claim "hand tremor" since a hand tremor is unlikely to kill me. Nor do I have Parkinsons. I have nerve damage in my hand that worsens when I exert it unduly. Is that really worth an obituary mention? What precisely makes you think there is no other cause for hand tremors beside Parkinsons??

There are a hundred different reasons one can have a hand tremor.

However, the 'Shaky Hand' letter appears to have turned up after DSS's handwriting had been identified as showing a tremor. It's not just showing a shaky hand, but drawing attention to it. Forgive me but it's terribly convenient.

I have a feeling that anything that points to the marginalia being genuine will be considered convenient by some. Just like at this point, anything that points to it not being genuine and the absolute boggling nature of the conspiracy you people are weaving is seen as ridiculous to most.

[The Good Michael]

Aha. Well, then; how are you going to prove a case that this Japanese fellow could not be a pot smoker from this meagre evidence?

Surely THAT is what is proposed, parallel to the thread content?

That question is unimportant. The real question that needs to be asked is why anyone would believe something without evidence and then try and create a plausible story and use the steps that were created for the story as evidence? Creating evidence is not the same as having evidence. Creating evidence is absolute BS and is the way things are done all too often in the JTR story, and that is the reason this Japanese guy should be left alone.

Mike

[Chris]

However, the 'Shaky Hand' letter appears to have turned up after DSS's handwriting had been identified as showing a tremor. It's not just showing a shaky hand, but drawing attention to it. Forgive me but it's terribly convenient ( just as Nevin's death was convenient).

Well, presumably any response by me to this stuff will simply be ignored, but I feel it should be pointed out that Charles Nevin is still alive and well.

[Rubyretro]

Chris :

" whether we
can identify the ‘Fred’ who presented
The Lighter Side of
My Official Life
to Donald Swanson" (from Ripperologist)

I think, Chris, that it is quite clear that both pro and anti Marginalists accept that the book was from 'Fred'. We accept it because it is the inscription in the book before Jim Swanson glued a letter from Anderson over it.

"The letter wasn’t glued in place when Charles Nevin visited Jim in October 1987 while preparing the
Telegraph article, nor when Martin Fido saw the book shortly afterwards" (also from Ripperologist).

Do we agree, Chris, that the letter was glued in after 1987 ( when Jim knew that the book was published in 1910).

Whilst going through the physical motion of gluing in that letter, how could Jim not have noticed that he was gluing over the Fred inscription ? (although I think that he would have noticed it well before, actually).

Please explain it to me
.

[Fisherman]

That question is unimportant. The real question that needs to be asked is why anyone would believe something without evidence and then try and create a plausible story and use the steps that were created for the story as evidence? Creating evidence is not the same as having evidence. Creating evidence is absolute BS and is the way things are done all too often in the JTR story, and that is the reason this Japanese guy should be left alone.

Mike

That question, Mike is ANYTHING but "unimportant" - for that is what is proposed on the thread: that a verdict on not guilty can be looked upon as proven.
No other case has been made on this thread as far as I can see. Nobody is asked to "believe something without evidence" - at least not when it comes to believing in any forgery on behalf of the marginalia. The point that has been made throughout is not that any such forgery has taken place - it is instead that it has not been proven beyond doubt that it has NOT taken place.

I seem to remember that Edward has stated - on another thread - that the marginalia is more likely to be genuine than not (correct me if Iīm wrong, anybody), but that it cannot be ruled out conclusively that foul play has been present to a smaller or lesser degree.

Somehow, from that stance, it has been deduced that the marginalia has been called a fake, and that has carried with it a collective feeling of people having been trampled on. And so the Donīt-touch-my-buddy reflex has set in, and suddenly it is said that the material that does not tally with certain theories has been singled out and named forgeries.

But NOTHING has been!

As for the theory I champion, nothing is altered by approving or disapproving the authenticity of the marginalia. Either it is genuine, and we have a top ranking policeman saying that a poor polish jew did it - something the rest of the contemporary police world laughed about.

Or it is fake - and we have a top ranking policeman saying that a poor polish jew did it - something the rest of the contemporary police world laughed about.

The one thing that changes is that we get a surname to that jew. Big deal - THAT should bring the Lechmere proposition down!

See what I mean, Mike? The burden of proof lies not with those who call the marginalia an outright fake, since nobody does as far as I can tell. And if somebody should, they could not be taken seriously until proof was provided.

The burden of proof lies on you when you imply that your Japanese neighbour should be regarded as beyond reproach. You suspect him of smoking pot, you canīt prove it - but that does not mean that we should file him as a done deal. The jury remains out, and thatīs as it should be.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Ruby

No - what I'm asking you is the source for your claims that there were several witnesses who said the letter was not there in 1981, and that Jim Swanson knew about the inscription from 'Fred'.

The statement in Adam's article, citing Nevin and Fido, has been discussed above. My point was that it apparently relies on people's recollections of what they saw 24 or 25 years previously.

So can I take it that it was that statement by Adam relating to 1987 you were thinking of, not witnesses relating to 1981? And that you assume Jim Swanson must have seen the inscription by 'Fred', because you think that the letter wasn't glued in until after 1987?

[Rubyretro]

. However, you accuse Jim. This is based on what exactly?

As for you question, Im going to dip out of that Im afraid.

Monty

You should read back -I already explained why I thought that the person who had the motive, capability and personality to forge it would be Jim.

I don't go in for multiple forgers, myself.

I would really like to see the glued in letter and attendant date confusion explained away, and I'm sorry that you don't want to explain it to me logically. I wish somebody would.

[The Good Michael]

The burden of proof lies on you when you imply that your Japanese neighbour should be regarded as beyond reproach. You suspect him of smoking pot, you canīt prove it - but that does not mean that we should file him as a done deal. The jury remains out, and thatīs as it should be.

Yes, the burden lies with me. But as I've come to realize, because I'm intelligent, that I may be delusional and that the things I thought I believed are absolutely ridiculous, I'm walking away from this moment of stupidity that hovered over me. Unfortunately for all, these moments of stupidity become years of obsessions on this site, and reduce Ripperology to a study of the absurd. That is as important as the case gets these days...it is a sociological experiment that involves absurdity becoming, through dogged determination and loud noise, a sort of mainstreaming of nonsense. When it's loud and long enough, others jump on the bandwagon. The people who guard the boundaries between sanity and nuttiness get labeled the cabal. And then the absurdity reaches a level of parity...which makes it all even more absurd. I'm not going to let my Nipponese neighbor fall into that quagmire.

Mike

[AdamNeilWood]

I think, Chris, that it is quite clear that both pro and anti Marginalists accept that the book was from 'Fred'. We accept it because it is the inscription in the book before Jim Swanson glued a letter from Anderson over it.

"The letter wasn’t glued in place when Charles Nevin visited Jim in October 1987 while preparing the
Telegraph article, nor when Martin Fido saw the book shortly afterwards" (also from Ripperologist).

Do we agree, Chris, that the letter was glued in after 1987 ( when Jim knew that the book was published in 1910).

Whilst going through the physical motion of gluing in that letter, how could Jim not have noticed that he was gluing over the Fred inscription ? (although I think that he would have noticed it well before, actually).

Please explain it to me
.

The inscription from Fred is on the first page of the book, which happens to be blank. The 1905 letter is pasted over that.

The date 1910 appears on the seventh page, which is the title page, opposite a photo of Anderson.

Whether the letter was pasted in 1987 or 1997, the publication date is still visible.

[Rubyretro]

Listen Chris -are you saying that the things that were direct statements by living people in Ripperologist are not true ?

I would never wish to disparage anything that people with the sort of integrity of Adam Wood would say -I am perfectly certain that they are honest.

I am allowed to have a different interpretation of past events than them.

If I am not directly involved but am obliged to use their facts to support my arguments, then it must be that I have confidence in their facts.

I also try to do my own independant research.

The Anderson letter was not glued in in 1981.

Jim Swanson tried to put over the idea that the 1910 book presented by 'Fred', was presented by Anderson in 1905.

How do you explain this ?