Private sale

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

And some classic cars go for twice that. So once again, value is in the eye of the beholder.

If it is of any help in cutting through the fog, I did approach the Swansons several months after the York Conference, and bid $5000 (Dollars not pound symbol thingie). I was immediately told that they had already received a bid several multiples of that, which to me implied $15,000-20,000 if not more had already been bid. So a valuation of 20,000 pound sign thingie strikes me as feasible/realistic. I approached it strictly as an investment.

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry Edward,
you cannot say by the reaction of people on the thread something is clearly true when you havent said what you are implying. It is not fair on the people Ally, Jonathan, whoever else it was, to imply they are party to something and not say what it is you mean.

As the for the marginalia, its the family's property and its up to them what they do with it. I would like them to just give it to me for free, but if they want to flush it down the toliet, equally it s up to them

best wishes
Jenni

Edward,
I still don't recall seeing an answer to this?
You mentioned the reaction of the people in this thread Edward, well what did you mean, are you saying something about a cabal involving Chris, Jonathan, Ally and the Swansons?

What is your point.

I dont think it very fair or a sign of integrity to throw that kind of statement out there but not throw anything to back it up even when explicitly asked - it sure makes me wonder about the reasoning behind the rest of what you are saying

Just a thought, how about it?

Jenni

[Chris]

What is this supposed close relationship Chris has with the Swanson family. How is it well known?
In what capacity is he their adviser.

I'd like to know that too. I must say I don't remember ever advising any member of the family about what they should do. But what do I know?

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Edward ,
so if you don't think the right tests were done what tests would you like to see and are worried won't be done if its sold this way into private hands? What would the tests you are thinking of show ?
Jenni

I'll ask again, what are the raft of tests someone would do?

Surely the tests done are sufficient, since you and Trevor, both appear so knowledgeable on the subject matter, what are the tests you would do?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
The tests may seem pretty fine to you – you are no expert.
I said earlier that if a reputable auction house decided the existing tests were satisfactory then then should be accepted. It is not for me to specifically suggest tests.

I can however point out obvious flaws in the process as things stand.

By Dr Davis being too close to principals (potentially) I do not mean to suggest he was related to them.
He conducted the second test in the owner’s house while accepting their hospitality – that could create too convivial an atmosphere.
Dr Davis is a document examiner for the Metropolitan Police and may I remind you that the Marginalia was kept at Scotland Yard for a number of years as an exhibit at the Metropolitan Police’s private Crime Museum. There was a lot of press coverage about the significance of the Marginalia being temporarily donated to the Crime Museum in 2006. I believe the Metropolitan Police website used to (probably still does) lists Kosminski as a major suspect largely based on the basis of the ‘Marginalia’.

In Dr Davis’s first report he raised a question over the differences in the handwriting. Some, presumably later, entries were shakey. He speculated that Swanson may have been suffering from a Neurological disorder such as Parkinsonism. There is no evidence whatsoever that Swanson was suffering from any form of Parkinsonism and quite a lot of evidence that suggest he wasn’t. Nearly every form of Parkinsonism is associated with a degree of mental debilitation and Swanson was supposedly very sharp up until the end. We have also been told that in his dotage he liked to sit threading flies for fishing – an activity that would be impossible if he suffered from any form of Parkinsonism. There is no indication in Dr Davis’s second report that this issue was addressed.

A pencil written letter was latterly found from 1923 that had similar shakey handwriting and this was used as a match against the shakey parts of the Marginalia, in Dr Davis’s second report. This letter came from the same source as the Marginalia, but was nevertheless accepted without question as corroboration.
There was an ink written letter from 1918 but I do not believe it showed the same signs of shakeyness and I do not believe this letter formed part of the basis of Dr Davis’s conclusion.
The pencil letter should in my opinion be closely looked at and other sources of Swanson’s handwriting sought out for the relevant period.

Then there is the News of the World documentation. It apparently all came to light in July 2011, the same month the News of the World went out of business. Part of this documentation consists of a draft article, supposedly from 1981, that turned up out of the blue at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in that month. The provenance of the News of the World supporting documents could probably be established but there has never been any suggestion that an attempt has been made to do this.

The touchy, quick to temper, irate and closed minded attitude that goes along with the Marginalia’s proponents is one of the things that suggest to me that it should be tested more vigorously. It suggests to me that there may be concealed doubts.

I didn’t in fact start this thread with the intention of going into the Marginalia’s provenance – but it has inevitably been forced into that direction by the ‘Marginalists’.
Why on earth not just seize the opportunity to have the whole collection looked at by independent experts who deal with these sorts of items regularly and who would also get the best price and would also give this field of study a publicity boost and one that enhances the credibility of ‘Ripperological’ research?

As Trevor mentioned I suspect one reason the ‘Marginalia’ has not been sold is because there is still a question mark over them.

Obviously that is the family’s decision to make, but I would suggest that unsatisfactory question remarks will remain if these documents are sold privately and then disappear into private hands.

Hi Ed,
it is up to you when you are the one trying to pick holes in the tests already done.

I've been involved in the commissioning of document tests in the last 10 years, so whilst I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, I do have some idea as to what is involved. However, this is irrelevant as you are the one calling into question the tests and saying that new ones are needed.

I'm sorry if it were my document Id want something more than your feeling about what an auction house may or may not do to guide me, as you mention, you are not an expert.

I repeat, in what way was Dr Davies too close to the principals. Simply saying something then repeating it a few posts later as fact does not make it true.

You do realise that the rest of what you are saying sounds rather ridiculous.

What I am being 'touchy' about is not the marginalia, it is a narrow small minded group of people who seem to ant to stir up trouble as their only cause and seem unable to do even the most basic google searches that would reveal information that they think is new.

As for calling me a marginalist, I dont even know what that is, but

I suspect the reason it hasnt been sold is because the Swansons believe they can get more for it than offered

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Lechmere mentioned the fact that he believed Dr Davies was too close to the Swanson family and others I am merely adding to that.

Forensic handwriting experts don't do examinations in the the front room of peoples houses as a rule.

As to the flaws they have been well documented in the past I do not intend to go over them again.

Your presumption may be clouded by the fact that you are one who wants to accept it as being authentic and that Dr Davies report corroborates that belief. Well if that's what you want to believe that's fine. But there are many others out there who have their doubts.

Yes, a belief Trevor, one he did not back up with facts. How about helping him out with some facts as to how he was close to the family.

he did it in their house is not a sufficient answer! Unless someone can explain how they think this affected anything?

I am one of the ones who wants to have it as authentic. Yes, I am a well know Kosminskite now am i? Have you read back through any of the marginalia threads, do yourself a favour, cut the innuendo and stick to the facts. Davies did the opposite of corroborating my pre existing belief which I have admitted more than once.

Jenni

[Ally]

If it is of any help in cutting through the fog, I did approach the Swansons several months after the York Conference, and bid $5000 (Dollars not pound symbol thingie). I was immediately told that they had already received a bid several multiples of that, which to me implied $15,000-20,000 if not more had already been bid. So a valuation of 20,000 pound sign thingie strikes me as feasible/realistic. I approached it strictly as an investment.

I have a book that's all marked up on the sides. You give me 5 grand and it's yours.

[Jenni Shelden]

They have been frightened to have to have it closely scrutinized by an independent handwriting expert which I offered to pay for.

They did their utmost to stop Dr Davies being interviewed by me with regards to challenging the results of his examination and his given opinion.

Unlike them I have no agenda other than to prove or disprove its authenticity and so far there is much to suggest that it is not totally authentic. There are other facts to consider outside of the marginalia itself which have an impact on it being totally authentic or not which some seem to want to ignore.

Was that before or after your account got suspended after you basically libelled Nevill Swanson?

[Ally]

Was that before or after your account got suspended after you basically libelled Nevill Swanson?

Oh snap.

[Stewart P Evans]

Highly Amusing

If nothing else, this thread is highly amusing. There are so many experts around.

The Swanson collection, as a whole, simply cannot be valued as it is unique. It is worth what someone will pay for it. That might sound obvious but the best the seller can do is decide on a reserve price, a sum below which he is not prepared to sell the collection. But no one can say the collection is worth so much (and give a figure) because its worth cannot be stated.

Theoretically the best way to sell the items would be by public auction with a respected auction house, preferably with experience of selling similar ephemera and memorabilia. Maximum international publicity would have to be given to the auction with the intent of attracting at least two wealthy bidders who would push the price up.

The provenance of the collection is very good and a proper expert analysis has been made of the so-called 'Swanson marginalia' which received a clean bill of health.

There really is little more than this that needs to be said about this private property, the future of which is in the hands of the owner.

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris
I haven’t seen any smears or innuendoes at Dr Davis’s expense.

Really, you didn't?

Let me help you out....

post 21
now this isnt direct but you are implying something is wrong with Dr Davies research in saying
"If it is sold, as it is potentially an important document, I would rather it was sold through a reputable auction house with a resident team of experts to give it their stamp of approval.
Wherever it is sold to and by whatever method, once it is sold it is very possible that no one will ever see it again, or put it under scrutiny.
Before it is sold, given that the family have the express intention and interest in selling it, there is the possibility of it being seen and scrutinised.
I am certain that an auction through a reputable house would get the best price despite commission and would give this field of study publicity and a degree of legitimacy in the wider historical research community for adopting a scrupulous approach to documents and their conveyance."

And again post 38
When a document is sold from its original private hands it would not be unusual for it to effectively disappear. So that is a worry in narrow ‘Ripperological’ terms. If it was sold through a reputable auction house then some of those worries would disappear because of the checks that would inevitably accompany the sale,

This is more what I assume was meant
post 45
I doubt that a reputable auction house would regard those tests as sufficient to hang their reputation on. But if they did then that alone would be satisfactory.
and
The ‘correct’ manner in this context would be acting openly and in such a way as to avoid any element of doubt about the archive.

post 48
I think the writing analyser was too close to the principals involved.
I think the supporting documents were accepted too readily.
I would expect the supporting documents to be critically examined and investigated.
However I am not an expert.
As I said, if a reputable auction house that is used to dealing with historic documents accepted the archive – with or without further investigation – then sensibly that should be good enough for everyone.
They after all are the experts.
People who confidently assert on here that the tests that have been carried out so far are definitive are not experts. So I don’t personally hold much store by such claims.

post 63
Before your indignation gets the better of you, if you wrote a book and asked your best mate, who was also a literary critic, to review it, then arguably that review would not be so valuable as one from someone who had never met you before in their life. Although your mate may have consciously tried to divorce your pre-existing relationship from his mind, and although he may be a literary critic of the highest professional standard and competence, there is a chance that sub-consciously he may have pulled his punches or been overly kind to you.
This would carry no implication for your friend’s professionalism, skill or competence, would it?

It is the same potentially with Dr Davis. That is not a potentially serious allegation.

and post 63
I can however point out obvious flaws in the process as things stand.

By Dr Davis being too close to principals (potentially) I do not mean to suggest he was related to them.
He conducted the second test in the owner’s house while accepting their hospitality – that could create too convivial an atmosphere.
Dr Davis is a document examiner for the Metropolitan Police and may I remind you that the Marginalia was kept at Scotland Yard for a number of years as an exhibit at the Metropolitan Police’s private Crime Museum. There was a lot of press coverage about the significance of the Marginalia being temporarily donated to the Crime Museum in 2006. I believe the Metropolitan Police website used to (probably still does) lists Kosminski as a major suspect largely based on the basis of the ‘Marginalia’.

In Dr Davis’s first report he raised a question over the differences in the handwriting. Some, presumably later, entries were shakey. He speculated that Swanson may have been suffering from a Neurological disorder such as Parkinsonism. There is no evidence whatsoever that Swanson was suffering from any form of Parkinsonism and quite a lot of evidence that suggest he wasn’t. Nearly every form of Parkinsonism is associated with a degree of mental debilitation and Swanson was supposedly very sharp up until the end. We have also been told that in his dotage he liked to sit threading flies for fishing – an activity that would be impossible if he suffered from any form of Parkinsonism. There is no indication in Dr Davis’s second report that this issue was addressed.

A pencil written letter was latterly found from 1923 that had similar shakey handwriting and this was used as a match against the shakey parts of the Marginalia, in Dr Davis’s second report. This letter came from the same source as the Marginalia, but was nevertheless accepted without question as corroboration.
There was an ink written letter from 1918 but I do not believe it showed the same signs of shakeyness and I do not believe this letter formed part of the basis of Dr Davis’s conclusion.
The pencil letter should in my opinion be closely looked at and other sources of Swanson’s handwriting sought out for the relevant period.

Then there is the News of the World documentation. It apparently all came to light in July 2011, the same month the News of the World went out of business. Part of this documentation consists of a draft article, supposedly from 1981, that turned up out of the blue at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in that month. The provenance of the News of the World supporting documents could probably be established but there has never been any suggestion that an attempt has been made to do this.

and post 65
If you continue reading you will see reasons why Dr Davis was potentially too close to the principals involved.

and 69
I didn’t suggest that Dr Davis had a pre-existing relationship with the Swanson family.
I think that someone should arrange a course of basic English comprehension for some posters on this site.

I gave an example of why suggesting that an expert may be sub consciously swayed in giving an opinion, which has no bearing or implication on his honesty, integrity or capability.
I then went on to suggest possible reasons for Dr Davis being subconsciously swayed.

If you read what I said about Dr Davis you will comprehend that your nonsense about tea and biscuits clearly wasn’t my argument.

To clarify the Parkinsonism issue for you, Dr Davis did not say in his first report that the handwriting showed signs of being that of an old person who may have become a bit frail. He said that it showed signs of someone suffering from a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism. That is a massive step up from regular old age frailty.

And no Ally – I’m not going to pay for anything to be done. If the sale was conducted through a reputable auction house then they would do it. That is my point.

Even you can see how taken collectively, together with what Trevor MArriott stated on this thread as a result of your posts, this can be seen as an attempt to smear Dr Davies?
Jenni

[Trevor Marriott]

I'll ask again, what are the raft of tests someone would do?

Surely the tests done are sufficient, since you and Trevor, both appear so knowledgeable on the subject matter, what are the tests you would do?

Jenni

Jenni
These issues as far as I am concerned have been discussed many times before its not just about tests it revolves around firstly Dr Davies examination
The fact that the last line is totally out of context with the rest of the text. The fact that the name Kosminski was missing from Sandells article

Now to me all of those three make the alarm bells ring

[Jenni Shelden]

Well, Trevor, no one asked you to contribute to this thread if you felt it was already discussed and sorted. The fact is you chose to join in. In which case, you should feel able to answer the point, the point being, what tests you think need doing (actually the question was addressed to Ed but as you feel compelled to reply to something I said to him and ignore all my posts directed at you).

You mention you have plenty of experience in document examination, what tests would be done and under what conditions.

What is wrong with Dr Davies.

it is wrong to condemn his tests but not elaborate so people may judge if you are correct for themselves.

Jenni

[Trevor Marriott]

Really, you didn't?

Let me help you out....

post 21
now this isnt direct but you are implying something is wrong with Dr Davies research in saying
"If it is sold, as it is potentially an important document, I would rather it was sold through a reputable auction house with a resident team of experts to give it their stamp of approval.
Wherever it is sold to and by whatever method, once it is sold it is very possible that no one will ever see it again, or put it under scrutiny.
Before it is sold, given that the family have the express intention and interest in selling it, there is the possibility of it being seen and scrutinised.
I am certain that an auction through a reputable house would get the best price despite commission and would give this field of study publicity and a degree of legitimacy in the wider historical research community for adopting a scrupulous approach to documents and their conveyance."

And again post 38
When a document is sold from its original private hands it would not be unusual for it to effectively disappear. So that is a worry in narrow ‘Ripperological’ terms. If it was sold through a reputable auction house then some of those worries would disappear because of the checks that would inevitably accompany the sale,

This is more what I assume was meant
post 45
I doubt that a reputable auction house would regard those tests as sufficient to hang their reputation on. But if they did then that alone would be satisfactory.
and
The ‘correct’ manner in this context would be acting openly and in such a way as to avoid any element of doubt about the archive.

post 48
I think the writing analyser was too close to the principals involved.
I think the supporting documents were accepted too readily.
I would expect the supporting documents to be critically examined and investigated.
However I am not an expert.
As I said, if a reputable auction house that is used to dealing with historic documents accepted the archive – with or without further investigation – then sensibly that should be good enough for everyone.
They after all are the experts.
People who confidently assert on here that the tests that have been carried out so far are definitive are not experts. So I don’t personally hold much store by such claims.

post 63
Before your indignation gets the better of you, if you wrote a book and asked your best mate, who was also a literary critic, to review it, then arguably that review would not be so valuable as one from someone who had never met you before in their life. Although your mate may have consciously tried to divorce your pre-existing relationship from his mind, and although he may be a literary critic of the highest professional standard and competence, there is a chance that sub-consciously he may have pulled his punches or been overly kind to you.
This would carry no implication for your friend’s professionalism, skill or competence, would it?

It is the same potentially with Dr Davis. That is not a potentially serious allegation.

and post 63
I can however point out obvious flaws in the process as things stand.

By Dr Davis being too close to principals (potentially) I do not mean to suggest he was related to them.
He conducted the second test in the owner’s house while accepting their hospitality – that could create too convivial an atmosphere.
Dr Davis is a document examiner for the Metropolitan Police and may I remind you that the Marginalia was kept at Scotland Yard for a number of years as an exhibit at the Metropolitan Police’s private Crime Museum. There was a lot of press coverage about the significance of the Marginalia being temporarily donated to the Crime Museum in 2006. I believe the Metropolitan Police website used to (probably still does) lists Kosminski as a major suspect largely based on the basis of the ‘Marginalia’.

In Dr Davis’s first report he raised a question over the differences in the handwriting. Some, presumably later, entries were shakey. He speculated that Swanson may have been suffering from a Neurological disorder such as Parkinsonism. There is no evidence whatsoever that Swanson was suffering from any form of Parkinsonism and quite a lot of evidence that suggest he wasn’t. Nearly every form of Parkinsonism is associated with a degree of mental debilitation and Swanson was supposedly very sharp up until the end. We have also been told that in his dotage he liked to sit threading flies for fishing – an activity that would be impossible if he suffered from any form of Parkinsonism. There is no indication in Dr Davis’s second report that this issue was addressed.

A pencil written letter was latterly found from 1923 that had similar shakey handwriting and this was used as a match against the shakey parts of the Marginalia, in Dr Davis’s second report. This letter came from the same source as the Marginalia, but was nevertheless accepted without question as corroboration.
There was an ink written letter from 1918 but I do not believe it showed the same signs of shakeyness and I do not believe this letter formed part of the basis of Dr Davis’s conclusion.
The pencil letter should in my opinion be closely looked at and other sources of Swanson’s handwriting sought out for the relevant period.

Then there is the News of the World documentation. It apparently all came to light in July 2011, the same month the News of the World went out of business. Part of this documentation consists of a draft article, supposedly from 1981, that turned up out of the blue at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum in that month. The provenance of the News of the World supporting documents could probably be established but there has never been any suggestion that an attempt has been made to do this.

and post 65
If you continue reading you will see reasons why Dr Davis was potentially too close to the principals involved.

and 69
I didn’t suggest that Dr Davis had a pre-existing relationship with the Swanson family.
I think that someone should arrange a course of basic English comprehension for some posters on this site.

I gave an example of why suggesting that an expert may be sub consciously swayed in giving an opinion, which has no bearing or implication on his honesty, integrity or capability.
I then went on to suggest possible reasons for Dr Davis being subconsciously swayed.

If you read what I said about Dr Davis you will comprehend that your nonsense about tea and biscuits clearly wasn’t my argument.

To clarify the Parkinsonism issue for you, Dr Davis did not say in his first report that the handwriting showed signs of being that of an old person who may have become a bit frail. He said that it showed signs of someone suffering from a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism. That is a massive step up from regular old age frailty.

And no Ally – I’m not going to pay for anything to be done. If the sale was conducted through a reputable auction house then they would do it. That is my point.

Even you can see how taken collectively, together with what Trevor MArriott stated on this thread as a result of your posts, this can be seen as an attempt to smear Dr Davies?
Jenni

Dr Davies has not done himself any favours by not allowing himself to be questioned regarding his two examinations.

Not a smear campaign at all

[m_w_r]

Hi all,

No doubt someone will cry 'witch hunt' again, and I wonder sometimes whether I wouldn't be better off shutting my mouth, but ... it's good to be able to say that we're now in a position to assess Trevor's much-vaunted expert analysis of the marginalia, because he has finally named his expert in his new book, Jack the Ripper - The Secret Police Files (there we go, Trevor - don't say I never do anything for you...)

Trevor's expert is Diane Simpson (he spells her name Dianne), and you can find out more about her on her website: http://chesterdiva.wordpress.com/. I was interested in this bit (click for link):

Report B: Document Examination

There are two possibilities:

(1) IF – you require a comparison of writing in order to determine authorship I recommend you contact document examiner Dr Audrey Giles by telephone 01494 726784, alternatively visit her website: www.agiles.demon.co.uk
(2) IF – you have an existing report and wish to have it assessed in order to establish possible flaws then please give me a call to discuss possibilities.

According to the account in his book, Trevor sent to Ms Simpson 'a copy of the marginalia together with a new three-page document written by Donald Swanson, which I had uncovered and was dated 1893'. Ms Simpson reported that 'in her opinion there were significant differences between the handwriting of the marginalia and the control sample of Swanson's handwriting I had provided, suggesting that they had not all been written by the same hand'.

It sounds to me as if the task which Trevor asked Ms Simpson to perform fell outside her usual practice - it was a comparison of handwriting to determine authorship, which she says on her website she doesn't do. Ms Simpson does not seem to have seen or critiqued the Davies reports (which, actually, is the bit she says she does do).

I've no beef with Ms Simpson. Trevor makes it very clear that she provided only a preliminary opinion, and that she needed access to 'the original' (presumably, both originals - the marginalia and the 1893 document) in order to 'positively outline the differences between them'. However, I think Trevor's account of Ms Simpson's opinion and the means by which she reached it can be usefully compared to existing accounts of the methods and findings of Totty and Davies. I also think it would be helpful to see the 1893 document which Trevor sent to Ms Simpson as a control sample; or, if not to see it, then to know where it can be seen. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the 1893 document is a genuine sample of Swanson's handwriting, but, in the interests of completeness, it would be nice to be able to check.

Let the cries of 'witch hunt' begin.

Regards,

Mark