Private sale

[Lechmere]

In 1981 the Anderson letter was not stuck in the front so anyone looking at the book would have seen the inscription from Fred and the only date that anyone could think the book was published was the given date (on another page) of 1910.

Yet in the unused article found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum, that would be dated to 1981, Charles Sandell quotes Jim Swanson as saying:
“The book is called “The Lighter Side of My Official Life” and was published in 1905. As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book.”

So Charles Sandell who had spent two days talking to Jim Swanson and looking at the material, and Jim Swanson himself, both got it wrong.

How could they have come to this erroneous conclusion in 1981?
We know the Anderson letter was stuck in after 1987.
We do not actually know when the unused Scotland Yard article was written.

If the unused article was written after 1987 – after the Anderson letter had been stuck over Fred inscription – then it would make sense. The article would agree with the book. And logically the same hand would be involved.

[Chris]

Lechmere

I'm afraid you've just completely borne out my comment about your being only (at most) half awake.

I'll tell you what. Have a few cups of strong black coffee. Then read my post again, concentrating as hard as you can while you do it. And then have another try at responding to the point I'm making - rather than totally ignoring it.

[Hunter]

Jim also seemed to have mistakenly believed that Anderson was the one who wrote the memo appointing DSS the "eyes and ears" of the commissioner for the Whitechapel murders, when it was Warren who issued the memo. Pretty sloppy for a forger to forget who was supposed to have written the document he had faked.

[Chris]

And just to try to help you a bit more, here's a link to my previous post, which you either missed while slumbering, or saw while half awake but have now forgotten:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=276528&postcount=812

[Lechmere]

Chris
You seem to have some sort of preconceived notion involving Ripperologists.
I gave you a clear explanation of how the letter and the unused article can be made to agree – with the article being written after the letter was stuck in, with the same person responsible for both activities.

The scenario is that the faker wanted it believed that Anderson had presented the book and as the letter as dated 1905 he had to present the book as if it was published in 1905.
In this scenario the unused article would have been deposited in the Crime Museum to create the impression that the Marginalia was fully in existence in 1981. The unused article had to agree with the overt look of the book, so the article had the book presented by Anderson and dated 1905.
This would have been a decision made by the forger - not a mistake.

I’ll excuse myself from generating a scenario to conform to your notions.

Huner
Yes it's true that the unused article attributes the Warren memorandum to Anderson. There are many mysteries.

[Fisherman]

Why do you keep making all this stuff up? Did your parents give you special treats as a child when they caught you fibbing, or something?

You know very well - because I've had to "remind" you several times what Dr Davies really said - that he said nothing about anything being "typical", and nothing about "the Parkinson range of diseases". Conversely there's no mystery at all about what feature of the handwriting he was referring to - obviously it's the "evidence of occasional tremor".

Here it is yet again. (I'm thinking of making it my signature so I don't have to keep looking it up for you.)
"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's."

Ah - NOW I see. Davies is of course saying that the specifics of Swanson´s handwriting on that endpaper could be related to any disease BUT those belonging to the Parkinson´s range!

It´s a good thing we´ve got you to sort things out, Chris. I´m sure YOUR parents are very proud of YOU! And I bet you are very much attached to them.

Now, if you should think that I have passed comment on you and your relationship to your parents, then this is not so. It only looks like it, but we both know that it is the other way around.

And this is not a post to you, though it may seem that way. It is instead a cup of tea, sligthly diluted with water from the lowlands of Romania.

And Davies spoke of PD because there was no sign of it at all on that page.

And pigs fly. All the time.

Fisherman

[Sally]

Sigh...

Who would like to explain to Edward why the Crime Museum documents are almost certainly genuine? Anyone?

Or have we all come to that CBA moment?

[Fisherman]

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.

Hi Ally.

I´ve seen it mentioned in two sources, but I could only find the one when I looked for it. I posted it earlier. A guy named Charkot, who is apparently a front figure of early PD research, mentioned this trait in his work.

Just how prevalent the trait is, I don´t know, since I have not been able to relocate that other source. It was discussed in more detail there, as I remember things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Commissioner's Instruction

The two missing documents are financially and historically valuable - yet they have been mislaid or lost or whatever.
The Warren memorandum changed our knowledge of the case and Swanson's involvement in it – it is the ‘eyes and ears’ document.
Just say, hypothetically, that the Marginalia was tested again by a reputable auction house and some of it was found to be forged. What would that potentially imply about those missing documents?
I believe the Marginalia cannot be accepted until it is re-tested. By the same token the two missing documents must be counted as being of doubtful provenance until the Marginalia issue is resolve.
If the Marginalia is tested and found to be 100% genuine then there would be no reason to question those two documents even if they remained missing.
That is why the DS Swanson story is in the air as things stand.

The instruction from the Commissioner, dated 15 September 1888, putting Swanson in charge of the case is undoubtedly genuine. I state this having examined, photographed and analysed it.

Indeed, it was I who identified it as having originated with Warren, and not Anderson, as had previously been assumed and even published as such. It amazes me how people who have not even seen these documents feel happy to proclaim on their authenticity based on their own biased theorizing.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mud

A point that I feel should be noted is that certain posters on this thread seem to have a vested interest in calling the 'marginalia' and associated documents into question. We may wonder as to why this is, but I feel the reason is that they regard the content as being some sort of serious threat to their own theories and, dare I say, preferred suspect(s).

Perhaps their persistent protestations of fakery and sustained attack on the Swanson material is a sort of back-handed compliment. If they didn't consider it a serious threat they wouldn't bother. Also there is the old axiom that if you sling enough mud some of it will stick. They know they cannot prove it a forgery so casting doubt on it is a reasonable second option.

[Fisherman]

A point that I feel should be noted is that certain posters on this thread seem to have a vested interest in calling the 'marginalia' and associated documents into question. We may wonder as to why this is, but I feel the reason is that they regard the content as being some sort of serious threat to their own theories and, dare I say, preferred suspect(s).

Perhaps their persistent protestations of fakery and sustained attack on the Swanson material is a sort of back-handed compliment. If they didn't consider it a serious threat they wouldn't bother. Also there is the old axiom that if you sling enough mud some of it will stick. They know they cannot prove it a forgery so casting doubt on it is a reasonable second option.

That´s an interesting suggestion. I´m sure such things happen at times.

In my own case, though, I´d be interested to know what impact a proven provenance and genuinity of the marginalia could possibly have on the suggestion that Charles Lechmere was the killer.

Would it not be fair to say that it would have no impact at all? I think so.

Either we know that Kosminski was the man suggested by Anderson, and we may point to the fact that Anderson got a lot of things wrong and practically all other senior policemen disagreed with him.

Or, as a theoretical alternative, we find that we cannot prove that Kosminski WAS the man Anderson spoke of. In such a case we´d be faced with the exact same situation, minus the name.

Therefore, reasoning along your lines, since any fear of having my suspect thrown overboard by a confirmation of the genuinity of the marginalia can be dispelled.

I apparently have some other reason for my wish to see the marginalia looked into and - hopefully - positively cleared from any suspicion of forgery.

If that reason is not fear of having my own suspect ruled out, then what may this be? My suggestion is that it would be a genuine concern that we have not had the marginalia and the surrounding documents thoroughly enough tested.

It is a less fanciful reason, I admit that. But it´s the one reason I have to offer. And any disproving of that would take a pointing out of just how the marginalia would affect my own theory negatively, if decisively proven genuine.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Ah - NOW I see. Davies is of course saying that the specifics of Swanson´s handwriting on that endpaper could be related to any disease BUT those belonging to the Parkinson´s range!

No, he didn't say that, any more than what you claimed previously.

This is like watching a monkey at a typewriter trying to do Ripperology!

[Chris]

I gave you a clear explanation of how the letter and the unused article can be made to agree – with the article being written after the letter was stuck in, with the same person responsible for both activities.

Well, you posted the same kind of stuff you've already posted several dozen times already, but what's the point of that?

But you didn't in any way address the point I was making in my post. Not that I'm surprised ... well, maybe just a little surprised at how blatantly you've ignored it...

[Fisherman]

This is like watching a monkey at a typewriter trying to do Ripperology!

That´s easily helped: turn that mirror away from you.

Fisherman

[Chris]

Fisherman

Sorry - I forgot you needed to be reminded yet again of what Dr Davies really said.

There. I've put it into my signature. I'm sure it will save time in the long run. Or even in the next few hours.