Private sale

[Rubyretro]

.

But I simply couldn't let it go.

I didn't care to reply to this Stewart, but there are just a couple of things that I can't let go.

It's the poisonous business you are into, casting slurs on others disguised as hypothetical scenarios or exemplars.

It is very difficult to accuse someone directly, especially when there is no concrete proof. Does that mean that it is not allowed to put forward concerns, backed up by evidence, that the things are not as cut and dried as you are convinced that they are ? Should Lechmere have concerns but just go along with the crowd even if he doubts the crowd's opinion ?

How would you prefer him to present his opinions ?

What is the 'right' way of expressing his concerns without upsetting other people if he doesn't want to just 'give in' when he hasn't been convinced by the contrary arguement ?

And there seems to be no stopping you.

That's because he has valid arguements and opinions. Otherwise he would have been stopped.

You seem to feel that you have little status in Ripperology so you are setting about building yourself up as some sort of force to be reckoned with as a 'new expert on the block'.

No doubt , true. No one has much status when they begin but they build themselves up as a force by showing their expertise.

Trouble is you haven't done your homework well enough.

Anybody that knows Lechmere knows that he is a terrible obsessive that researches everything and does his homework. He certainly nags and hassles me if I don't do mine. He is occasionally wrong ( when he admits it)
but he is a total sceptic that checks and double checks facts when they are asserted. I would have pretty much confidence in him above most people.
Someone here compared him to 'logical' Mr Spock and, on one level, he is.

I'm sure that you will claim that you stated the above as examples of only what you 'could' argue. But the nonsense is that you have gone right ahead and made the suggestions. It doesn't need any disguising.

You meant it and wanted to say it, and you have.

Fair enough. Suggestions are all that he can make. They are logical suggestions.

As usual you haven't thought it through.

As usual he thought them through.

I don't wish to comment on the rest. It's all very silly.

[Chris]

It is worth repeating.... constantly.

You can repeat it as often as you like, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Nobody in their right mind, setting out to fake a document, would deliberately insert false information in it, particularly when that information would be well known to be false by the intended readership of the document.

[Chris]

Charles Nevin’s 1987 Telegraph article states that book was published in 1910 and does not say that the book was gifted by Anderson.
Paul Begg seems to have thought otherwise in 2003 . Possibly because he had seen the book after the letter was stuck in and like Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans in 2000, did not notice the incongruity and assumed it must have been there all along.
So Jim Swanson’s tactic was remarkably successful.

You have no proof that this was any kind of "tactic" at all, on the part of Jim Swanson or anyone else.

As for the discrepancy of dates, I'm sure it has been noticed a number of times. Certainly it was obvious to me when I looked at the volume a few years ago, and I'm sure I wasn't the first to notice it:
What's rather confusing is that a letter from Anderson to Swanson dated 25 December 1905 has been pasted on to the front endpaper of the book (see http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=82 for a scan of this letter). As this letter was written five years before the book was published, it obviously doesn't belong there, and I can only assume it was pasted there later by someone under the mistaken impression that it had accompanied the book. Underneath the letter is an inscription which has previously been read as "To Donald with very good wishes from Fred".

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=100993&postcount=88

[Robert]

Ruby, as regards Lechmere being Mr Spock, this was in response to his emphasising Jim Swanson's use of the word "all" in 'all his faculties.'

Now, if Lechmere is going to hold Jim Swanson to these exalted standards of logic, then why did he just write :

"All I would suggest is that the unused article should be tested."

This is clearly not all he would suggest, e.g. he has suggested that the marginalia be re-tested.

Now of course, Lechmere might justly point out that the context makes it perfectly clear what he meant :

"It is very strange that the unused article repeats the mistake when the unused article is supposedly dated prior to the letter being stuck in.

All I would suggest is that the unused article should be tested."

But then, the context makes it perfectly clear what Jim Swanson meant too.

[Lechmere]

Mr Evans
I rather think it would have been better if you had not replied to my post where I took your lead and gave examples of how to cast aspersions on other posters motivations.
I actually tend to avoid commenting on a posters potential motivation as I think it would make me look like a brat who didn’t have my own argument.

But you had spent several posts doing exactly that… and then you didn’t seem to enjoy it when it was thrown back in your face.
Now I see how sensitive you are to criticism, am I tempted to pop up every time you mention Tumblety and say ‘Ha, you only promote the suspect status of Tumblety because you own the Littlechild Letter’?
No, as I would rather discuss the relevant issues involved.

It is as reputable a debating technique as the oft repeated line ‘I’ve been doing this for 52 years and have forgotten more than you whelps know so don’t you dare contradict me.’
Or picking up other posters spelling mistakes as a form of ‘Oneupmanship’.

I would recommend that you keep your money in your pocket rather than take legal advice – as you were not libelled as you obvious realise. I presume that was just a blow hard remark anyway.
I know that you had the Littlechild letter authenticated actually, which in my book makes it strange that you are so averse to the Crime Museum items being tested.

You seem to misunderstand when I said:
I could say that Stewart Evans has a vested interest in the Marginalia being authentic as it passed through his hands and he didn’t take the opportunity to question Jim Swanson when he was still alive
You answered this by reiterating your position on Kosminski and Anderson.
I suggested – not particularly seriously I hasten to add – that because you neglected to cross question Jim Swanson in 2000, you might look foolish if the Marginalia now proved to be a forgery and that might be why you are have set your face against any other tests being done on it or any of the supporting documents.

The reason why I wouldn’t really accuse you of that – besides not wanting to use puerile debating tactics - is that I do not know you.
I do not know what sort of person you are.
Any more than I know what sort of person Adam Wood is, or Chris or most people on here. So making judgements about what motivates them would probably be wide of the mark.
That is the simple reason why I posted what I did. To make you think about the accusations you throw out at others.
You have made quite a few judgements about what I am like and what my motivation is, and you are in no position to know anything of the sort.

I have never sought to follow you around the boards disagreeing with you or picking a fight.
I am sure that most posters and readers here regard you as a national treasure of ‘Ripperology’ and that I am well out of order not treating you with servile deference.
I am not questioning the knowledge that you will have acquired over your years of interest, through your personal archive and your experience in the police. Having this knowledge will not however mean that you always draw the correct conclusions.

[Lechmere]

Robert
In an ideal world I would like to see the Marginalia re-tested as I have stated several times, with the 1923 letter as well, all by a reputable auction house, probably as part of a sale and part of a TV program that would generate interest in the whole subject and provide a higher selling price.
But I have also said that if the unused article is genuine then logically so is the Marginalia, so in many ways only the unused article needs to be tested. But that would be less good TV.
I hope that clarifies matters in a logical manner.
I think my alleged Spockism is rubbing off on you.

Chris
It is almost certain that Jim Swanson stuck the letter in and that he did it deliberately and knowingly to give the false impression that the book was given to his grandfather by Anderson and not Fred.
I would describe this as a ‘tactic’.
There is a teeny weeny chance that he did it totally by mistake and in ignorance.

On its own, sticking the letter in does not of course prove that the Marginalia is a forgery.
It does however illustrate that Jim could (could) be capable of subterfuge.
It also brings into play the awkward agreement between the letter stuck in after 1987 and the unused article written in 1981.

When this was done there was no ‘Ripperological’ community pouring over things. The awkward squad of sceptics, who wanted things tested scrupulously and didn’t just accept everything at face value, did not exist.

We find twenty pound notes forged using very expensive computers, using the best paper, printers and inks - going to great trouble to be exactly right – except they get the Queens head the wrong way round. Or some other equally crass error gives them away. That’s invariably the way it goes.

[CPenney]

The reason why I wouldn’t really accuse you of that – besides not wanting to use puerile debating tactics - is that I do not know you.
I do not know what sort of person you are.
Any more than I know what sort of person Adam Wood is, or Chris or most people on here. So making judgements about what motivates them would probably be wide of the mark.

Curious that the same consideration does not seem to apply to the late Jim Swanson.

[Chris]

It is almost certain that Jim Swanson stuck the letter in and that he did it deliberately and knowingly to give the false impression that the book was given to his grandfather by Anderson and not Fred.

Considering you've just given us a long-winded lecture on the unwisdom of commenting on the motivations of people you don't know, that is a remarkably foolhardy statement.

[Chris]

When this was done there was no ‘Ripperological’ community pouring over things.

I don't quite understand that. Pouring what over things? Marmalade?

[Robert]

I'll ask Ally to mark this a sticky thread.

[Lechmere]

I would rather not mention anyone by name – it is people like Chris and others here that insist.
But it is virtually beyond doubt that Jim Swanson stuck it there.
It was either a mistake or deliberate – I allowed both possibilities.
As I judge him as an intelligent person, I would tend to discount the mistake option. I went through that logical process.

This is quite a different exercise from trying to guess the motivation of why a poster makes a post or takes a particular debating point. They both may involve the word ‘motivation’ but that is about it.
I’m not debating with Jim Swanson in case that wasn’t obvious... and I'm never likely to get to know him.
I am trying to work out why he stuck a letter in a book that had no relationship to it, which gave the impression the book was from an illustrious person over the top of an inscription from an unknown person.

Are you going to disagree with Stewart Evans? Surely not!!! In this instance all I did was agree with him. He said:
It seems to me that there is little doubt that the person who stuck the 1905 Anderson letter in the front of the book was Jim Swanson. There really isn't anyone else, logically, who could have done it.
And I believe that Jim's only intent would have been to enhance the copy of Anderson's book by tipping in a letter from Anderson, despite the date being wrong
Possibly Jim had realized that the inscription in the book indicated another donor, 'Fred' and not Anderson, and was concerned that the book had been widely publicized as being a gift from Anderson, thus enhancing its qualities.

Why am I not surprised that you don’t understand this Chris?
When this was done there was no ‘Ripperological’ community pouring over things.

At the time the letter was stuck in the book there was no ‘Ripperological’ community that discussed everything in great detail. The leading lights who did see the letter were taken in by it and did not notice the error.
Simple.
And as I said most forgeries have errors.
But as I have also said, despite whatever grounds for suspicion there may be, even if you discount them and cling to alterative explanations, it is good practice to have documents verified – as with the Littlechild letter.

[Chris]

I would rather not mention anyone by name – it is people like Chris and others here that insist.

You people never cease to amaze me.

[Lechmere]

At a very early stage of this thread I was badgered to name names and when I didn't I was accused of all sorts of things.
Frankly the refusal to give an inch and accept that historical documents should be verified amazes me.
It amazes me that I am expected to justify my suggestion that they should be verified.
But then again this is 'Ripperology', a field that isn't regarded seriously by those involved in other areas of historical research and one might wonder why.

[Chris]

Frankly the refusal to give an inch and accept that historical documents should be verified amazes me.

As if anyone here had said any such thing!

[Lechmere]

So do you think the Scotland Yard Crime Museum documents and the 1923 letter should be verified?
A simple answer would do.
They were after all used to validate the Marginalia.
I presume you believe it was correct for the Marginalia to be verified?
If so why do you oppose having the supporting documents verified - if indeed you do?