Private sale

[Fisherman]

And isn't that absolutely typical of the utter nonsense that this thread has been filled with?

What a waste of time.

So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD? Interesting!

You must explain how you think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In case somebody should ask about the tremor thing, here it is. It describes Charcot´s findings (and they, Sally, were at hand at around the time the Ripper killed). It´s from "Minds behind the brain" by Stanley Finger (yes!), and describes the findings of Jean-Martin Charcot, a pioneer in the research on Parkinsons disease:

"As for the mechanics of the handwriting, he contrasted their tremulous upward strokes with their firmer and smoother downward strokes. Later, he would write about the shrunken size of the handwriting (micrographia)."

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

I did not discuss any further the points I had noticed as I did not wish our elderly, frail and hospitable host (Jim Swanson) might have taken offence and I actually did not doubt that the notes were genuine. Knowing how people will always put their own interpretation on such things, I knew that should I mention what I had seen there would have been an element who would accuse Jim Swanson of fakery and distress him over something that he obviously saw as important and reflecting well on the status of his grandfather. I therefore made no public mention of what I had seen.

I was, nonetheless, a little uneasy as I felt that it was something that should have been noted and discussed some twelve years earlier. I also noted that although the Home Office document examiner had seen photocopies of the 'marginalia' and Swanson's handwriting, and had declared them to be the same, no report of his examination had ever been made public. Indeed it seemed that there was no report, it was merely his opinion given in a letter (which had also never been made public).

My uneasiness manifested itself as a post on this site after Jim Swanson had passed away and was beyond being upset by the Internet ravings of Jack the Ripper aficionados. However, I factually presented my findings and interpretation of what I had seen for the edification of all. I was met with the expected response from the pro-Anderson/Polish Jew lobby and one semi-hysterical author actually suggested that I was committing libel. I pointed out that far from that I was merely posting facts and that I did actually say that I still believed the annotations to be genuine. However, if written at different times this could have a bearing on the accuracy of the notes.

It is a great pity that this has resulted in such acrimony and disputation but I still feel that I did the right thing in pointing out the inconsistencies in the handwriting. I, too, may be criticized for failing to properly take it up when I first noticed it, but, as stated, I had my reasons for not doing so.

Jim Swanson had been shopping it around for money. He can be distressed a bit to have questions asked about it. You can rightly be criticized for not bringing up the questions when we had some hope of getting direct answers and I have criticized you for this in the past and no doubt will again. And I also include Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner in my criticisms, as I have in the past and will in the future, for chucking the Marginalia in and "authenticating" it without having ever even seen it.


And as for protecting someone from internet ravings, (though I disagree there was any of that going on in 2000) there's a very simple way to do that - don't have them read the boards. If he was as old and frail as you say, I sincerely doubt he'd be checking the updates every two minutes.

But nobody did anything about it until it was too late and so now, no matter what evidence presents itself, Jim Swanson is going to be forever viewed as a forger by a group of people. And there is no evidence, no reason and no logic that is ever going to sway them from their belief that Jim Swanson was a forger.

If it ever comes to me, no matter how old and frail I am, don't wait til I am dead to make accusations. I like the chance to defend myself while I am still alive.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Fish,
with the greatest repsect in the world, yes he said it could have been because of Parkinsons, not that it WAS DEFINATELY because he had parkinson's.

That is what Chris and Ally and I have spent the last day trying to explain.

One of the neurological conditions that can cause this is Parkinsons, thats bascially what he said from memory, this implies equally, there are others which could also cause this.

What he didn't say, i think we all agree, is that the author of script, definately, (an ascertained fact if you will) had Parkinsons, ergo one can not make a judgement about the geuineness of the marginalia based on if DSS had diganosed Parkinsons.

Jenni

[Ally]

Hi Ally!

You take the discussion to new heights of charm and politeness, as usual.

All my answers to you are in the posts I´ve made - before and after your greeting.

Fisherman

No, you haven't actually addressed them. In fact, I doubt you actually read my post.

[Jenni Shelden]

Is it me or is this thread littered with people changing tehir arhgument when its shown to be sloppy but acting like they arent and therefore the people who initially were rubtting the statement they made are some how lunatics?

[Ally]

Been here before Ally,

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=200852&highlight=parkinsonism#post200852

Monty

Yeah I am beginning to see the futility. They just live in their own echo chamber, constantly repeating their dogma and getting it reflected back at them. There is no way reason or logic can permeate such fanatical BELIEF.

Like trying to reason with the religious.

[Jenni Shelden]

You seem super sure what he meant.
Jim Swanson said ‘all his faculties’.
Not ‘all his mental faculties’
Not ‘his mental faculties’.
Why did he say ‘all his faculties’ of he only meant mental?

Yes so sure I eneded the sentence with a question mark, a sign of how sure I was

[Monty]

My dear Monty
If you recall our ‘discussion’ was about Parkinsons and Parkinsonism.
Ally’s case is that DS Swanson wasn’t suffering from either.
So you haven’t been there before. Not with me anyway. And surely you aren’t such a tart as to have been there with someone else?

You need to re-read the thread Ed,

Apparently Im going 'there' with Ruby and Ally, dont get jealous now.

Monty

[Chris]

So, Chris, are you saying that Davies did NOT think that the writing revealed having been written by a person who seemingly could have had PD?

No, I am not. Obviously he didn't rule it out as a possibility. That's quite different from saying Parkinsonism was indicated.

[Lechmere]

That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find s large degree if truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought s kit if thus on himself also by regularly gilding the Lily.
Nevertheless I think it can be cleared up to virtually everyone's satisfaction with a little extra work. And that is all I have asked for.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
If you scroll back about 750 posts you will see that I have discussed why I think Dr Davis missed certain things in his second report.
I have not suggested that Dr Davis was not competent at examining at a sample of handwriting and recognising signs that he would presumably have seen before and suggesting that they were similar to that found in certain neurological conditions such as Parkinsonism.

You have said what you think of DS Swanson’s condition. I prefer to base my judgement on what the records say.

The significance here is that if he didn’t have a shaky hand condition then it brings into question the authorship of a big chunk of the marginalia. It also brings into doubt the 1923 letter which is pretty much the sole item used to authenticate that part of the Marginalia.
I am unclear about the provenance of that 1923 letter. I have asked but it has not been clarified. The letter certainly has not been subjected to any scrutiny.

These are the holes in the process that some people are so blasé about.

There is this steadfast and stubborn reluctance to admit that there are questions that still should be answered.

The 1923-24 date for the second set of Marginalia (the shaky set) is based on its authentication by comparison to the 1923 letter. There is as I said a 1918 letter that was not used as it was not a match (so far as I am aware).

I thought Dr Davies used several control samples, i seem to recall an address book and several other letters? I will have to reread the report.

[Jenni Shelden]

That's one of the few posts by Ally that I can find s large degree if truth in.
I think Jim Swanson brought s kit if thus on himself also by regularly gilding the Lily.
Nevertheless I think it can be cleared up to virtually everyone's satisfaction with a little extra work. And that is all I have asked for.

Sorry, you lost me

[Ally]

Nevertheless I think it can be cleared up to virtually everyone's satisfaction with a little extra work. And that is all I have asked for.

But you expect other people to do the work til it's proved to your satisfaction right?

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Stewart,
thank you for posting what you actually think. A lot of people have tried to allude to you saying certain things, its nice of you to take the time to clear up what you actually feel
Jenni