Private sale

[John Bennett]

This may be irrelevant to arguments that are going on, but how many commentators on this thread have actually SEEN the Swanson marginalia? In person?

JB

[AdamNeilWood]

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).

Where did you read that he annotated philosophy and crime books?

DSS did however annotate other crime books, and if you look on page 28 of Rip 128 you'll see some examples.

But to be honest I don't know why you feel it would be good to see them, seeing as they came from Jim Swanson along with Lighter Side. Might you, Jim did well naming Supt Shore as the person Anderson was writing about in Criminals and Crime from 1907 and that journalist James O'Kelly was a War Correspondent in Cuba before joining The Irish People.

[Chris]

Ruby

I don't wish to be rude, but it really is pointless trying to discuss this without getting the basic facts straight first.

Again you state - as thought it is an established fact - that the letter was not there in 1981.

I'll ask again - what evidence do you have for that claim? Is it purely based on the statement in Adam's article, or is there something else?

[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.

Im sorry Ruby,

However the thread is overly bloated and I do not have the time, nor inclination if Im honest, to read through it again.

And its not that I do not wish to explain, just that Im very aware of the situation and do not wish to spark yet another round of unfounded accusations by others, not you I add.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Adam,

A simple question.

How can somebody read what is written under something glued over the top of it.... if what is glued in covers up the original text underneath?

Just a question.

Because I haven't seen any mention that the "Fred" bit was read by looking through the back of the said page.

Unless the glued in bit is only partially attached to the "Fred" page? Is it?

Thanks for your considerations. Apologies if I have misremembered the form of the glued attachment over the "Fred" writing...



Phil

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Ally;276434]

You know Ruby as you present yourself as someone with integrity, you really need to stop making wild ass assumptions based on no evidence.

First of all. every single person here, apart from jokers like Mike and Robert, present themselves as people with integrity. I try not to make 'wild ass assumptions'.

Like the fact that an 80 year old can't write email.

88. I can't possibly disagree with Adam. It would be as rare for someone of that age to use email as for someone to be able to forge someone elses handwriting. Very very rare -not impossible. Anyone would be dubious.

How precisely would a photo show he had a hand tremor ??

Not grasping a small object ? Blurring and movement ?

What makes you think a hand tremor presents itself at all times and in all activities?

I don't think so. But why not stop writing and then come back to it without comment ?

What makes you think that an ability to tie fly fishing lines prevents you from having a tremor??

The two are mutually exclusive according to fishermen.

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.

Well funnily enough so have I had a hand tremor ( at different times), due to repetetive strain injury and carpel tunnel syndrome. So bad that I could only sleep fitfully clasping a bottle of ice. But it is not analogue to parkinsonians.

You are just making stuff up that has no basis in foundation.

I'm not making anything up.

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 so sorry for you !

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??

I don't -but that's what the Expert said -something like Parkinsonians. I also think that I would just go away from the writing, rest, and come back without comment if I had a transient problem with writing. The shaky writing is something else, isn't it ?

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

Ok Ally -do a list.

I have a feeling that anything that points to the marginalia being genuine will be considered convenient by some.

Not to me. I'd like it to be genuine. I'd like the comparisons to be done with some material irrefutibly dating from just before DSS's death.

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.

Seen as ridiculous by people like Chris, still trying desperately to say that the Anderson letter wasn't glued in in 1981 ? Or thinking that he is being (even more desperately) clever in trying to make me show a photo of the book without the letter glued in in 1981?

Why doesn't someone answer logically the issues around that glued in letter and the confused dates between it and the NOTW draft ?

[Chris]

Because I haven't seen any mention that the "Fred" bit was read by looking through the back of the said page.

To save Adam the trouble - yes, that's how it was read, and photographed.

[Chris]

Seen as ridiculous by people like Chris, still trying desperately to say that the Anderson letter wasn't glued in in 1981 ? Or thinking that he is being (even more desperately) clever in trying to make me show a photo of the book without the letter glued in in 1981?

I've simply asked you what evidence the statements you've made here were based on. Do you think the question is unreasonable?

[Phil Carter]

Thanks. But don't we have to be a bit careful about people's recollections of events 25 years earlier - unless they are supported by photographs or contemporary notes, for example?

Hello Chris,

Yes, we do.

1888-1913... 25 years.

"Supported by photographs and contemporary notes" eh?


Exactly where do we find the photographs and contemporary notes relating to D.S.Swanson's recollections from 1888?

Prey, do let us know where we can see these items?

No, I am not taking the rise either... you laid down the guidelines.. I used them against the supposition of reliability in the marginalia. Sorry if the eggs boils that way too.



Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Adam,

A simple question.

How can somebody read what is written under something glued over the top of it if what is glued in covers up the original text underneath?

Just a question.

Because I haven't seen any mention that the "Fred" bit was read by looking through the back of the said page.

Unless the glued in bit is only partially attached to the "Fred" page? Is it?

Thanks for your considerations. Apologies if I have misremembered the form of the glued attachment over the "Fred" writing...

Phil

Phil,

It was photographed through the reverse of the page by Keith Skinner, who held it up to a window. I then reversed and enhanced the image in Photoshop.

Easy to miss, but I wrote something along those lines in the caption to the photo in the article.

Adam

ps Sorry, just seen Chris has already replied your question while I was typing this!

[Chris]

Exactly where do we find the photographs and contemporary notes relating to D.S.Swanson's recollections from 1888?

Prey, do let us know where we can see these items?

No, I am not taking the rise either... you laid down the guidelines.. I used them against the supposition of reliability in the marginalia. Sorry if the eggs boils that way too.

Of course all the police reminiscences have to be taken with a large dose of salt. It surprises me that you seem to think I would disagree. Remember that I do not believe Aaron Kozminski is likely to have been the Ripper. I only believe he was suspected by the police, which is obviously very different.

But what's being discussed here is the genuineness of the annotations, not the accuracy of the information they contain.

[Phil Carter]

To save Adam the trouble - yes, that's how it was read, and photographed.

Hello Chris,

How considerate of you. Thank you.

Then you will also know, of course, when the first mention of the knowledge of the "Fred" writing was known, and by whom, no?


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Of course all the police reminiscences have to be taken with a large dose of salt. It surprises me that you seem to think I would disagree. Remember that I do not believe Aaron Kozminski is likely to have been the Ripper. I only believe he was suspected by the police, which is obviously very different.

But what's being discussed here is the genuineness of the annotations, not the accuracy of the information they contain.

Hello Chris,

True. Very true. However..and we must be, and believe me I am trying to be, as impartial as possible here, to consider the implications of said contents.

The person who Swanson names as a suspect in the marginalia, was, as far as "photographs and contemporary notes relating to D.S.Swanson's recollections from 1888" is concerned, a non-existant. The police have no record of his name on file, even those mentioned in the missing suspects file, which was gone through before it disappeared off the face of the Earth into someones collection... did not mention either Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog.

That tells me that the premise for assuming...that horrible word again...is incorrect. Belief in such an assumption, which you have, is based on nothing of contemporary source material. No notes, no photographs, etc etc. The 1894 mention in the Memoranda is hardly claim that the police (NOT the individual policeman MacNaghten, please note) as an entity, or body of men, had any of these three men under suspicion at all. I also mention regarding the MM, for the umpteenth time, that it is NOT an official police document, not addressed to anybody, no department or individual in one either, and was never received into the files, nor dated as such, nor catalogued as such, at any time. It is purely ONE man's writings on the subject, as it was in his autobiography x amount of years later. It was NOT a known official police overview of the suspect situation at all.

Therefore, by logically reasoning, any reference back to Swanson, and his marginalia, relies solely and single handedly on PERSONAL recollections. Nothing else. These personal recollections are countered both in printed letter and book form, newspaper articles etc by many other individual policemen. And if Anderson is to be believed, Macnaghten when referring to Druitt and the drowned suspect... is talking out of the back of his head... so how trustworthy is the rest of the Memoranda?

These are how things are Chris. One person's word countered by another... and the shocking thing for me is that the Metropolitan Police Crime Museum, has paraded ONE of these personal recollections and used it to promote their own museum, in public print, whilst not allowing Joe Public to go in there!...So what is the point of pronouncing the rehashed museum in a public newspaper if the public cant see it anyway?

Now if they had promoted the MacNaghten Memoranda... a SERVING policeman's notes whilst the Whitechapel murders were still ongoing,..supposedly written in 1894... THEN I could understand an official view of sorts.


A "Putting all of one's eggs in one basket", I believe they call it. Trouble is, in the "personal recollection handicap stakes", there's more than one horse involved.

Why do I keep thinking..

"You pay's yer money, you takes yer choice"???



Phil

[AdamNeilWood]

Hello Chris,

How considerate of you. Thank you.

Then you will also know, of course, when the first mention of the knowledge of the "Fred" writing was known, and by whom, no?


Phil

Phil,

During research for my article the question was asked of Martin Fido, who said:

"The inscription was definitely NOT concealed when I saw the book [in October 1987]. Don [Rumbelow] and I, I think, mulled over the possibility that it might have been Abberline."

Adam

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

During research for my article the question was asked of Martin Fido, who said:

"The inscription was definitely NOT concealed when I saw the book [in October 1987]. Don [Rumbelow] and I, I think, mulled over the possibility that it might have been Abberline."

Adam

Hello Adam,

Does this mean that the "Fred" inscription was NOT glued over?

That would mean that said "over-glueing and pasting" was done... after when...earliest possible date?

Was it pasted in there when Stewart Evans saw it?


Thank you again for taking the time to reply.


Phil