Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

I certainly didn't use a bad word Jenni as the first test did not conclude matters.

It CONCLUSIVELY stated that the writing belonged to Donald Swanson

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I'm glad you don't use those disreputable tactics.

There was a caveat to his conclusions which meant it was fundamentally inconclusive - hence the need for a second report.

If the first report was conclusive the it would be relied upon on its own. CPenney suggested it was superseded. Which it wasn't. The second report added to it. Dr Davis makes this explicit.

But actually discussing this issue is an exercise in irrelevance.

[Jenni Shelden]

or are you stating if there had not been a 2012 test, teh 2006 would be conclusive?

[Fisherman]

[

Hi Ed,
Except Dr Davies did not single out Parkinsons, that is the point several posters have now spent days trying to make to you. It seems the majority of people on this thread agree that Dr Davies did not single out Parkinsons.

best wishes
Jenni

I don´t think that Edward has any trouble as such to realize what kind of point several posters have tried to make. It IS kind of obvious, to be perfectly honest.

Nor do I believe that he has failed to see that "the majority of people" on the thread claim not to accept that Davies singled out Parkinsons - for whatever reason (Ehrm).

I instead think that Edward is actually making ANOTHER point than the one several people have tried to make. In other words, I suspect that he believed that all of these people you refer to are wrong.

I would also go as far as to venture the guess that he - on superb linguistic grounds - thinks that the very same people are totally wrong about what Davies singled out or not.

But that is of course something that Edward himself needs to verify before it goes down as gospel!

For my own part, I can only say that my impression is that several people on this thread make a very bleak effort in trying to change what Davies said into something quite different than the thing he DID say. And I would advice strongly against mixing carrots up with Parkinson´s disease - it makes for a detestable soup.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

You are quite correct Fisherman!

Jenni
The Emperor’s courtiers all thought he was wearing a magnificent set of clothes. But he wasn’t.
That a number of people are stonewalling suggestions that the Marginalia and associated documents should be re-examined does not ‘prove’ their case.
Any more than a number of people suggesting that Dr Davis plucked ‘Parkinsonism’ out of thin air at random.
I have spent several days explaining to them that as it is a particularly virulent condition it is a strange one to pick – when he had no need to specify any condition whatsoever.
I have also made the point that it is the only, the single, the sole, condition that Dr Davis troubled to mention.

Now it could of course be that he didn’t mean anything by this. I mentioned this in a recent post.
The point is there are grounds for suggesting otherwise.
The only reason it is brought up at all is to justify having the 19223 letter examined.
Actually no justification is required for saying the 1923 letter should be examined.
That should be obvious.

[CPenney]

Actually no justification is required for saying the 1923 letter should be examined.

So, having it tested against which document would satisfy you, then?

Just going out on a limb, here, but since the 2012 test included two other family letters, as well as Swanson's address book, do you assume those should be tested as well"?

I ask because you seem to be a real believer in this sort of analysis, as you are very consistently demanding that these other documents have the be tested, yet I have not seen you actually approve any expertly-conducted test that has been put before the community.

[Lechmere]

Chris, Chris, Chris…

You do get terribly muddled up.

To you no doubt believing or having it believed that Anderson had personally presented his memoirs to DS Swanson is of no importance.
You can look upon this with Olympian disinterest (you can, can’t you?) You have no intimate connection.

But to, say, Jim Swanson, this may have been another matter. He was, some might say, justifiably proud of his grandfather. Having it thought or even by convincing himself that Anderson had presented the book, rather than a nobody called Fred may well have been important to Jim Swanson.

I would propose that it was possibly done for this reason.
I don’t think for a second that it was done to specifically add weight or authority to the annotations.

Once the letter was stuck in, if hypothetically some of the annotations are forged, and if the unused Crime Museum documents were also forged to provide false provenance to the Marginalia, then it would make sense for the unused documents to ‘agree’ with the superficial appearance of the book – namely that it was presented by Anderson and published in 1905.

This is an explanation for why the unused documents had those incorrect details when they were supposedly written in 1981, yet the Fred inscription would have been in full view in 1981.

You fail to take on board that forgeries very frequently have errors within them that lead to their discovery. You seem to expect them to be perfect. The perfect ones are the ones we don’t know about.

I am not going to explain this anymore to you.

[Robert]

Lechmere, re the 1888 letter, the general consensus seems to be that it is a hoax. Now, this letter could have been inserted by anyone who gets kicks from wasting people's time. But that's not what you're suggesting with the article, is it? You're suggesting that the article might have been deposited by a member of, or someone very close to, the Swanson family from motives of family loyalty and/or financial gain. So again I ask, why would it be deposited in a manner that made it likely that it would be found god knows when?

[Lechmere]

No Jenni
I am not saying the 2006 test was conclusive in any way as Dr Davis left room for doubt.
He expressed this in his second report as follows:
‘In my previous report I stated that my comparison was particularly restricted by the facts that the known writing was produced about 30 years before the questioned writing and that the known writing was written with a pen whilst the questioned writing was in pencil.’

This was also de facto acknowledged by the family and presumably Adam Wood as they arranged a second test.
The ‘Ripperological’ community heralded this second test and the detail within Adan Wood’s article as conclusive proof of the authenticity of the Marginalia.

All I am doing is saying that there is room for considerable doubt as the supporting documents were not tested.
This is apparently very controversial.

CPenney
The two other letters were put before Dr Davis in 2012 but in so far as I am able to determine from his report, he did not utilise them as a basis for comparison. Accordingly it is not relevant to have them tested.

Having said that if the items were to be tested by a reputable auction house then I would expect all documents to be made available to them, for them to choose what they wish to examine.

What is this strange remark about?
‘I have not seen you actually approve any expertly-conducted test that has been put before the community.’
Is it implying that I have singed the Marginalia put for ‘special treatment’.
I haven’t seen the Littlechild Letter test but I have assumed that was done correctly as it was conducted as part of its appearance on a TV program and not as a prelude to a sale.
There are not that many new items that come to light to check are there?

With reference to your little chin scratch remark, it would be up to the tester to determine how the 1923 letter should be tested. It is not always necessary to test a document against another one. The paper for example.

I think it would be much more straight forward to test the unused article by contacting News International. In fact I am sure they would love to do a story about this, which could help the selling price.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I will leave it to your imagination to think up your own scenarios as I have said before.
If I provide you with scenarios I will be accused of naming people and so forth - and we wouldn't want that to happened would we.
It is not necessary.

[Chris]

But to, say, Jim Swanson, this may have been another matter. He was, some might say, justifiably proud of his grandfather. Having it thought or even by convincing himself that Anderson had presented the book, rather than a nobody called Fred may well have been important to Jim Swanson.

I would propose that it was possibly done for this reason.

You spoke before of "the overriding importance, to the hypothetical forger" (my emphasis). Now it appears you agree it would have been no importance to a hypothetical forger, only of personal importance to Jim Swanson, for reasons that had nothing to do with any hypothetical fakery.

If nothing else, that has usefully clarifed that whenever you say "the hypothetical forger" you actually mean "Jim Swanson".

Once the letter was stuck in, if hypothetically some of the annotations are forged, and if the unused Crime Museum documents were also forged to provide false provenance to the Marginalia, then it would make sense for the unused documents to ‘agree’ with the superficial appearance of the book – namely that it was presented by Anderson and published in 1905.

You're forgetting that the true date of publication is still in plain view. The "superficial appearance" of the book is that it was published in 1910 and has a letter from Anderson to Swanson dated 1905 pasted in the front.

You say it would "make sense" for the publication date in the article to "agree" with the date of that letter. But what you need to explain is why that should be - considering that everyone knows that Anderson's book was published in 1910, and that as far as we know no one even noticed during Jim Swanson's lifetime that the letter in the front of the book was dated five years earlier.

What I'm asking is what actual benefit to the hypothetical faker would result from putting that patently false information in the article, which would be bound to be noticed if the article was ever published. Why should a faker deliberately risk arousing suspicion in that way?

[Robert]

Lechmere, I will have a think once I have had my corn flakes. Rest assured, I will mention all the cloak and dagger antics and I might even include a man of 75 years of age minimum, with dark glasses and a false beard (note : not glued, but pasted on!)

[Lechmere]

Chris - as much as I understand your condition your questions have been answered in detail.

[Chris]

Chris - as much as I understand your condition your questions have been answered in detail.

Unless you are able to suggest some benefit to the hypothetical faker that would result from inserting a patently false date of publication in the article - rather than, for example, mentioning no date at all - then it's clear that you have no answer at all to the question.

In short, on the theory that the article is a fake, the 1905 date is inexplicable.

[Lechmere]

Chris
Asking the same question in slightly different ways after you have been given a comprehensive answer is not clever.
Run along now.