Private sale

[Ally]

Mark Ripper for the win.

[Chris]

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'.
...
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'.

Can this possibly be the same person that Trevor Marriott referred to in another place?

I have had a copy of the marginalia and copies of a newly found three page police document written by Donald swanson in 1893,sent to a leading handwriting expert who now states that in their opinion the two were not written by the same person.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=159979&postcount=56

I wasnt going to come back but I feel i should say that as far as the previous examinations are concerned from what i am able to ascertain these were not conclusive and do not categorically show Swanson wrote the marginalia. if the Dr Davies report is published it will clearly show that, whereas the new tests have proved conclusive.
I rest my case now

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=159984&postcount=59

[my emphasis]

[Chris]

It is also interesting to look back at Paul Begg's comment in the same thread on jtrforums:
If your expert's conclusion that the marginalia was not written by Donald Swanson is categorical then one awaits it with interest. As said, though, have you given Nevill Swanson their names and qualifications; I mean, it would be sad if he released the marginalia to them only to find they're graphologists. It might be reassuring for him to know that's not the case.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=159986&postcount=61

From the website of Diane Simpson:
Founder member of the British Institute of Graphologists ...

[Lechmere]

Jenni

‘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.’

And

‘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’

My apologies, I always try to answer questions.
I can only imagine that I missed responding to you amidst the miasma of personal abuse coming from the Marginalists.

My claim was spelt out in my opening post – that the Swanson Collection was being actively offered around for private sale.
I wasn’t implying anything – I’m sorry if that disappoints you.
I think your queries show a disturbing degree of paranoia.

This is the course of events…

Mr Menges (post 11) asked for my source. In effect he was querying the veracity of my claim.

I responded (post 12) that I did not want to reveal my source, but that it was apparent by the responses that had up to then been posted that my claim was true.

Adam Wood (posts 4 and 6) had effectively confirmed my claim by saying that it wasn’t news as it had already been announced.

In fact the nuance that the vendors were actually approaching potential buyers out of the blue had not been previously announced.
This seemed to me to be an escalation in the process of sale. According to the Swanson Collection website they were inviting people to approach them and were also thinking of going to auction.
I personally did not need conformation that the claim was true as my source was unimpeachable.
Incidentally my source has not been compromised by any of this discussion.

This thread would have been a very short one if someone ‘in the now’ had merely responded along the lines of…

Oh yes the Swansons are approaching potentially interested parties as they don’t think it is viable to go to auction
or
Oh yes the Swansons are approaching potentially interested parties in order to establish a likely price and the level of interest
Or whatever.
(I am aware thee responses were given among the mire - that is where I got the ideas from).
But instead the discussion spiralled away and we find the usual personal attacks and abuse that faces anyone who dares query anything to do with the Marginalia.

[Jenni Shelden]

I don't think there was any personal abuse directed at you.

?? I'm sorry if you feel like that.

Try not diverting attention away from what is being asked.

What tests would you like to see done.

What affect did Dr Davies doing the test at the Swanson home have.

What is the personal relationship to which you refer.

Are you accusing me of being a marginalist?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

I'd rather not say at this point - but by the reaction it is clearly true.
It was clearly true so far as I was concerned anyway.

Here it is Ed, this is what I think I meant originally ...

[Trevor Marriott]

It is also interesting to look back at Paul Begg's comment in the same thread on jtrforums:
If your expert's conclusion that the marginalia was not written by Donald Swanson is categorical then one awaits it with interest. As said, though, have you given Nevill Swanson their names and qualifications; I mean, it would be sad if he released the marginalia to them only to find they're graphologists. It might be reassuring for him to know that's not the case.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=159986&postcount=61

From the website of Diane Simpson:
Founder member of the British Institute of Graphologists ...

It should be noted that as has been said many times before these experts only give an opinion.But when an expert raises an issue then it must be fully investigated.

Nevil Swanson was asked if he would allow my expert to examine the original and he refused. Yet he allowed Dr Davies to carry out a second test on it. That second test should have been done by an independent examiner to which I offered to pay for.

Dr Davies gave his opinion based on weak material that was put before him as control samples.

I am not a handwriting expert but you only have look at Swansons handwriting to that contained in the control sample I used and it can be seen that there are significant differences in how the letters are formed and joined.

Any prospective buyer would be foolish to buy the book for a large sum of money as is stands, given what is known about it and without a new independent test being carried out on it and all the relevant Swanson letters etc and that expert also being in the full knowledge of all the other connecting matters surrounding the marginalia

[Lechmere]

Jenni

You seem to think that not accepting Dr Davies’ second report as being the final word on the authenticity of the Marginalia constitutes ‘innuendo’.
I think you need to look the ‘innuendo’ up in the dictionary.

I also spelt out explicitly why I thought Dr Davies was possibly compromised – that is not ‘innuendo’ either.

Pointing out potential flaws in a report and pointing out why the author may have possibly been compromised does not mean I am smearing the author.
I am sure that Dr Davies is used to being cross examined or even contradicted about his findings. It would be remarkable if he was not.

Your innuendo and smear claims are ludicrous.

Incidentally I was asked for reasons why Dr Davies second report should not be regarded as conclusive and for areas where further tests could be carried out.
I responded to both – only for you to accuse me of innuendo!
Yet simultaneously you claim that no one has pointed out flaws or potential tests!
I have done both!
But I have also made I plane that if people much better qualified than me (such as experts at a reputable auction house) passed the Marginalia based on Dr Davies report then that would have to be accepted.

[Jenni Shelden]

No Ed, that is not what I think. I think saying that he has a personal relationship ios innuendo (not my phrase originally but if the cap fits). I think implying the tests are in some way not valid is innuendo, questioning whether an auction house would consider them as acceptable, saying he has been compromised

not producing any evidence for what you are saying other than a feeling you have

I dont think it was me who said smear and innuendo in the first place, I was merely asking you to back up what you were saying, which I have done numerous times. Instead you come back with your same point, rather than an argument. Rather than address what I am asking.

You did nothing explicitly, state the personal relationship to which you refer.

Where on this thread have you stated what tests you would carry out. Saying an auction house would carry out tests is not an answer. Since you are a judge of the 'failings' of these tests, you should be a judge of what an alternative is

I could go on.

[Trevor Marriott]

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):



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

Well you finally emerged from under your stone as expected right on cue.

Well seeing as you think you are so smart and efficient I am surprised you haven't been able to find that said 1893 document because its been posted before on here.

Seems you are not as smart as you think you are maybe you should spend more time doing genuine research and less time worrying about me

[Ally]

Anyone surprised that Trevor failed to address the actual substance of Mark's post? No? Me neither.

[Jenni Shelden]

Trevor,
but in regards to Mark's actual point about the quality of your document examiner?
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Anyone surprised that Trevor failed to address the actual substance of Mark's post? No? Me neither.

snap again

[Jenni Shelden]

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

Hi Ed,
I looked at what I said then I looked up innuendo in the dictionary
"An innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be
a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or
accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent."

It really helped answer the question, no wait... thanks
Jenni

[m_w_r]

Well seeing as you think you are so smart and efficient I am surprised you haven't been able to find that said 1893 document because its been posted before on here.

Ah, yes - found it. Thanks. I see good reasons to suppose that that document was written by Donald Sutherland Swanson in 1893.

Regards,

Mark