Private sale

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I think you will find that Diane Simpson is very knowledgeable about the ripper case far more so than Dr Davies or Richard Totty.

But hey ho lets create a smoke screen to evade further discussion on the original topic which clearly is getting to some posters and rightly so.

[Ally]

Knowledge about the Ripper case is absolutely irrelevant. Ability to analyze handwriting is what is under discussion here and her own website points you to SOMEONE ELSE to do handwriting analysis. She is therefore not qualified to do handwriting analysis no matter how much she knows about the Ripper case.

The mere fact that you don't comprehend that is ... amazing.

[Jenni Shelden]

Knowledge about the Ripper case is absolutely irrelevant. Ability to analyze handwriting is what is under discussion here and her own website points you to SOMEONE ELSE to do handwriting analysis. She is therefore not qualified to do handwriting analysis no matter how much she knows about the Ripper case.

The mere fact that you don't comprehend that is ... amazing.

THIS...this is so true

[Cogidubnus]

I think you will find that Diane Simpson is very knowledgeable about the ripper case far more so than Dr Davies or Richard Totty.

Yes Trevor, possibly so much so that she might be regarded as "too close to home", her opinions possibly subconsciously tainted by her previously acquired knowledge?

Sorry mate (sauce for the goose etc)

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

That thought had occurred to me as well but I was waiting to see if Lechmere brought it up. I mean seeing as how he is so convinced that a cup of tea could have subconscious influence on a person's perceptions, I was sure he'd be outraged at someone with pre-existing ideas about the case being considered to authenticate disputed handwriting (especially when that person isn't even qualified to do so according to their own press).

[m_w_r]

For those interested, here is the 1893 Swanson document which Trevor 'uncovered'.

Click for link

Regards,

Mark

[Cogidubnus]

So they're ink samples as opposed to pencil, and thus for comparison purposes, of reduced importance.

All the best

Dave

[Jenni Shelden]

To be clear, were they not also copies, whereas Dr Davies saw the originals?

[Chris]

It should be noted that as has been said many times before these experts only give an opinion.

Then why on earth did you represent it in your post on jtrforums as "conclusive"?

You must have known that what you posted was quite contrary to what Diane Simpson had told you.

[m_w_r]

So they're ink samples as opposed to pencil, and thus for comparison purposes, of reduced importance.

It's also the case that Swanson had more than one style of handwriting (just as most of us have). The 1893 document, which is a report, tends towards his more formal, neat style; but he also used, professionally, a more rough-and-ready, informal style which is typical of his annotations.

The marginalia seem to me to be more characteristic of his informal style.

Regards,

Mark

[Chris]

I have dealt with more cases involving the use of handwriting experts than you have had hot dinners.

Then why on earth would you have the comparison done by a graphologist, who explicitly recommended people should go elsewhere for such comparisons, rather than a questioned document examiner?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then why on earth would you have the comparison done by a graphologist, who explicitly recommended people should go elsewhere for such comparisons, rather than a questioned document examiner?

Well Totty and Davies as so called experts haven't done a very good job. But to be fair to them they haven't had much to work with as control samples. In a proper case a handwriting expert would receive a lengthy report outlying the addittional facts surrounding the case and the reasons for the tests. I doubt either Totty or Davies was provided with such detailed information.

I still find it hard to come to terms with how could Dr Davies carry out such a detailed and important examination is someones front room.

Diane Simpson is as good as either of the above and her opinion is just as valid as the two mentioned above and as stated she knows all about the ripper case and the letters so she is by no means a person to be discredited.

At the end of the day as I keep saying they all give opinions.

The past events are academic now we can sit here arguing about them till the cows come home. It is the future that we should be concerned with.

I think people are getting carried away with this marginalia and its content.
If Swanson did write it all then we know it must have been after 1910. But the Kosminski suspect had been eliminated by MM before then. So how important is it realistically. Not much and even if he did write it certainly not worth the high figures being banded about

[Trevor Marriott]

For those interested, here is the 1893 Swanson document which Trevor 'uncovered'.

Click for link

Regards,

Mark

Well done Sherlock !

[Ally]

I still find it hard to come to terms with how could Dr Davies carry out such a detailed and important examination is someones front room.

As opposed to an examination done using copies and no original materials in an office somewhere that is done apparently by just eyeballing photocopies and giving an opinion?

Diane Simpson is as good as either of the above and her opinion is just as valid as the two mentioned above and as stated she knows all about the ripper case and the letters so she is by no means a person to be discredited.

Seriously, are you actually mental or do you have basic comprehension problems. Her OWN website says she's not qualified to give a handwriting analysis and points you to someone else so your claiming that she's "just as good as Davis" is either a blatant lie or proof that you are so far out of touch with reality as not not even comprehend there's a difference between reality and fantasy.

HER OWN WEBSITE says she's not qualified to do handwriting analysis. She is therefore NOT as good as Davis when it comes to making determinations.

She may be aces in her chosen field but she's pants in the one area you solicited her opinion in. Therefore, it is a baseless and entirely worthless opinion.

[Jenni Shelden]

Well done Sherlock !

Why are you being so sarcastic ?