Private sale

[Fisherman]

Chris!

Did it help to turn the mirror away?

Let me help you out with the Davies quotation too, so we can put that obstacle behind you!

The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Andersonīs book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

So in the handwriting on the endpaper of the marginalia Davies saw evidence of an occasional tremor. That does not mean that the handwriting was steady, it means that it was shaky.

Can we agree on that? That the handwriting was affected by a shaky hand?

Furthermore, that shakiness showed a similarity to something. It showed a similarity to the shakiness "sometimes found in the handwriting of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonīs."

You seem to think that Davies meant that it was shaky, end of story. And then he added that actually, people within the narrow group of diseases related to or being Parkinsonīs disease ALSO shake.

So in this, there was a similarity: Swanson shook, and so do PD patients. That is not to say that Swanson was a PD patient. Not is it to say that he shook in the same manner as PD patients do. All Davis meant by adding the PD reference, was to point out that Swanson was not the only person in the world to have shaky handwriting.

To your mind, apparently Davies could just as well have said "The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals who are very frightened."

or

"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 Huntingtonīs disease."

or

"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals who have the paper they write on rattled by a companion as they write."

You in fact suggest that Davies picked PD out of the air, just to tell the world that there are people besides Swanson that shake when writing.

That, of course, would have added immensely to most peopleīs insights and knowledge. Most people would have no idea that some shake when writing. And it takes a pro like Davies to realize this.

What a luck he shared his professional knowledge with us.

A sack! You can pull a sack over the mirror if it is not possible to turn it around!

But wait - what if the mirror is fixed to the wall ...? Ah - got it! Pull the sack over your head, Chris, and itīs problem solved, and you can .. what? Say what? You have actually spent your entire career in Ripperology with a sack over your head..?

Then how did you see the monkey?

Itīs all good and fine to hold a different opinion, Chris. But calling people names for having a perfectly viable (and in this case incredibly superior) interrpretation than the one you favor, spells disaster.

So you are welcome to your view - I would not want it for a split second.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Chris!

Did it help to turn the mirror away?

Let me help you out with the Davies quotation too, so we can put that obstacle behind you!

The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Andersonīs book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

So in the handwriting on the endpaper of the marginalia Davies saw evidence of an occasional tremor. That does not mean that the handwriting was steady, it means that it was shaky.

Can we agree on that? That the handwriting was affected by a shaky hand?

Furthermore, that shakiness showed a similarity to something. It showed a similarity to the shakiness "sometimes found in the handwriting of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonīs."

You seem to think that Davies meant that it was shaky, end of story. And then he added that actually, people within the narrow group of diseases related to or being Parkinsonīs disease ALSO shake.

So in this, there was a similarity: Swanson shook, and so do PD patients. That is not to say that Swanson was a PD patient. Not is it to say that he shook in the same manner as PD patients do. All Davis meant by adding the PD reference, was to point out that Swanson was not the only person in the world to have shaky handwriting.

To your mind, apparently Davies could just as well have said "The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals who are very frightened."

or

"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 Huntingtonīs disease."

or

"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals who have the paper they write on rattled by a companion as they write."

You in fact suggest that Davies picked PD out of the air, just to tell the world that there are people besides Swanson that shake when writing.

That, of course, would have added immensely to most peopleīs insights and knowledge. Most people would have no idea that some shake when writing. And it takes a pro like Davies to realize this.

What a luck he shared his professional knowledge with us.

A sack! You can pull a sack over the mirror if it is not possible to turn it around!

But wait - what if the mirror is fixed to the wall ...? Ah - got it! Pull the sack over your head, Chris, and itīs problem solved, and you can .. what? Say what? You have actually spent your entire career in Ripperology with a sack over your head..?

Then how did you see the monkey?

Itīs all good and fine to hold a different opinion, Chris. But calling people names for having a perfectly viable (and in this case incredibly superior) interrpretation than the one you favor, spells disaster.

So you are welcome to your view - I would not want it for a split second.

All the best,
Fisherman

That is why in addition to a new independent examination needs to be conducted but before that Dr Davies should be interviewed regarding his examination and conclusions and not by those who have been involved with him previous.

[Chris]

Itīs all good and fine to hold a different opinion, Chris. But calling people names for having a perfectly viable (and in this case incredibly superior) interrpretation than the one you favor, spells disaster.

And now you're going to accuse me of calling you names, just because I said reading your posts was like watching a monkey at a typewriter trying to do Ripperology.

You know the sort of thing - "We can therefore say beyond doubt that the murders were committed by ---- gazornumplat"

[Chris]

That is why in addition to a new independent examination needs to be conducted but before that Dr Davies should be interviewed regarding his examination and conclusions and not by those who have been involved with him previous.

Thankfully Mr Marriott is no longer empowered to bring people in for questioning. The mind truly boggles.

[Sally]

The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Andersonīs book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

(My emphasis)

Hi Fish. 'Similar' doesn't mean 'exact' as you appear to believe. Here's the OED definition:

adjective
having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical:
a soft cheese similar to Brie

So, in that instance, Camembert could be termed as similar to Brie - although it is not exactly the same.

The term 'Similar' is indicative of common characteristics or traits, to a greater or lesser degree - it emphatically does not mean 'exactly the same' or 'looks exactly like'. In the English language, we would probably choose to say 'is' or 'is exactly the same as' or even 'identical' if we wanted to indicate a resemblence/coincidence that went beyond 'similar'

[Lechmere]

Sally before you jumped in you should have read on as fisherman did answer that properly even if one sentence was slightly awkwardly phrased - so your point has no validity. Apart from in a semantic discussion.

Chris
So you acknowledge that I have answered that question before - you seem to think I am obliged to get into your scenario - I am not.

[Fisherman]

And now you're going to accuse me of calling you names, just because I said reading your posts was like watching a monkey at a typewriter trying to do Ripperology.

Well, Chris, you are at least sticking to your very own way of doing things; Davies spoke of a similarity between the marginalia writing and that of PD patients, but you claim he never must have meant that any PD traits were there at all.

And now you say that the similarity between a monkey at a keyboard and me doing ripperology is there, but this does of course not mean in any shape or form that you have called me a monkey.

Bravo - same "logic" all the way!

I think your logic long since has taken the similar course as the Titanic did, ending up in the mud many thousands of yards below the level where most peopleīs logic can be found.

But that is just a metaphore, of course. By inserting the little word similar, I ingeniously disenable you to take offence, since youīve been accused of absolutely nothing.

Wanna go on with this, or shall we get a bit more serious? Discuss the case, sort of? No monkeys, no Titanics? How about it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally ... your point has no validity. Apart from in a semantic discussion.

Is there any other sort of discussion to be had, you mean ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Ps, Sally! I know that "similar has levels." Many, many things have.

[Sally]

Good Morning Edward!

So nice of you to tell me what I should do - I do so enjioy these little patronising moments of yours.

I concede, I tend not to read some posts very carefully due to the fact, ironically, that such posts tend to focus on semantics, which are often tedious.

Thus, in some cases, it's true that I'm likely to pick up on the glaring errors first.

Oh well. My bad.

[Sally]

Is there any other sort of discussion to be had, you mean ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Ps, Sally! I know that "similar has levels." Many, many things have.

Very true, Fish. Many things have many levels. Can't argue with that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect Theorizing

Thatīs an interesting suggestion. Iīm sure such things happen at times.
In my own case, though, Iīd 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 weīd 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 itīs 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

One of the oddities (perhaps it's not odd) of Ripperology and suspect theorizing is that when you push a suspect of your own it has traditionally been deemed necessary to attack other people's theories regarding suspects and the material they use to support their suspects.

The reasons for this may seem obvious but, perhaps, should be restated here. Theorists, researchers, authors, and essay writers, have their own stature in the field and more notice is taken of some than others. Also the sources used in some cases are much better than sources used in other cases, particularly when they offer no evidence of a person being a suspect at all. We therefore find that when top authors and researchers, such as Paul Begg and Martin Fido, favour a theory (in this case based on Anderson and Swanson) a lot more notice is taken of them than those with lesser recognition in the field. Another result of this is evidenced in all the ego and stature building that goes on in these forums. Ergo Messrs Begg and Fido gain a greater following, and belief in their ideas, than do, say, 'Fisherman' and 'Lechmere', or Marriott for that matter.

Anderson's writings and Swanson's annotations have long been the bedrock of the Polish Jew suspect theorizing, and it's a valid and rather solid bedrock to build upon. So, Paul and Martin are in a strong position with their Jewish suspects (especially 'Kosminski') as opposed to anyone who may have the temerity to suggest that Charles Cross, or Lechmere if you prefer it, was Jack the Ripper rather than a mere inquest witness.

So, there, I have explained the relevance of the 'marginalia' and of how its authenticity reflects upon a suspect theory that enjoys greater recognition, and following, than yours. It is, therefore, in your interest to cast as much doubt as you can on this valid suggestion as to the identity of the Ripper, as based on the writings of two very senior police officers involved in the case. But I am sure that you know that really.

We are all interested in the genuineness of source material and the quality of the source material used in various theories. I'm afraid that in your case there seems to be only your own (and apparently a very few others) interpretation of what you regard as suspicious, such as an alternative name being used (I do hope that doesn't start another lengthy debate on this theory as this is not the place for it).

I should, perhaps, add here a little about my own position. I have been interested in the case for the past fifty two years, which is longer than some on these boards have been in the world. In 1965 my favoured suspect was Druitt (thanks to Cullen), and by the late 1980s it was 'Kosminski', (thanks to Messrs Begg and Fido). In 1993 I acquired the Littlechild letter which made it necessary for me to write my own book (published in 1995). I was reluctant to write a suspect based book but I really had no choice. I was also reluctant to include a chapter in that book dismissing other suspects, but I lost the argument on that one. After the paperback and TV documentary on Tumblety came out in 1996 I ceased any active research on Tumblety and left it to others interested in him. And I was realistic enough to know that he couldn't be proved to be the Ripper, nor was there any hard evidence.

Post 1996 I moved back into objective work on the case, as witness my subsequent publications. I am silly enough to sometimes be drawn into 'debates' about Tumblety, not arguing that he was Jack the Ripper (which could never be proven with regard to any suspect), but in answer to some ridiculous suggestions that he wasn't even a suspect. Some of the objective and relevant research and writing I have done since has involved a deep study of Sir Robert Anderson, upon whom some of the strongest suspect theorizing is based. I could not agree with writers who suggested that Anderson was some sort of paragon of virtue who simply would not lie or prevaricate in his published books (I proved that he did).

So don't you presume to tell me anything about this case or Anderson. Unlike you I have examined all the material being questioned here, and I have not been uncritical of it. However, I have to accept that the 'marginalia', in my considered opinion, is genuine as is the other Swanson material. Despite the unfortunate initial assessment of the 'marginalia' proper examinations have now been done, and as I stated I have no doubt that other document examiners would reach a similar conclusion, that the handwriting is, indeed, that of Donald Swanson.

It is also interesting to note that you refer to Cross (Lechmere) as 'my suspect', interesting use of the possessive there. He is obviously set to be your own personal claim to Ripper fame. By the way, were you aware that many years ago, on these very boards, someone suggested Cross as being suspect (before the name Lechmere was known) and they were quickly 'thrown overboard'? I fear there are many here who will 'throw your suspect overboard'. I think I shall steer clear of that one.

[John Bennett]

A much-welcomed shot of common sense from Stewart amid all this silliness.

Nice one SPE!

[Chris]

So you acknowledge that I have answered that question before - you seem to think I am obliged to get into your scenario - I am not.

Crikey, what on earth is your problem?

What I said was that you posted the same stuff you had posted several times before, but completely ignored my question!

[Chris]

Well, Chris, you are at least sticking to your very own way of doing things; Davies spoke of a similarity between the marginalia writing and that of PD patients, but you claim he never must have meant that any PD traits were there at all.

I'm not sure what "never must have meant" means, but in any case I didn't claim any such thing.

And now you say that the similarity between a monkey at a keyboard and me doing ripperology is there, but this does of course not mean in any shape or form that you have called me a monkey.

You have a problem with basic English comprehension, as Sally has just pointed out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thankfully Mr Marriott is no longer empowered to bring people in for questioning. The mind truly boggles.

After all your moronic postings you still cannot answer a post sensibly without resorting to personal abuse.