Private sale

[Ally]

I am guessing seething jealous and envy.

[Lechmere]

Frankly Trevor’s previous books, where he got his sources from, whether or not he plagiarised them, and the quality of his previously proposed authenticator has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it would be advisable to have the Swanson collection sold (and in the process authenticated) by a reputable auction house.

It is 100% irrelevant and is an example of ‘playing the man’ and not what he says – on this thread.
I have never suggested using Trevor’s proposed expert and I have no interest in it.
The most practical resolution would be to do it via an auction house in conjunction with a TV program.
These ad hominem attacks are however par for the course when any attempt is made to critically discuss the Marginalia.

It is clearly up to the family where they sell it, but what I am concerned about is how it should be dealt with from the selfish vantage point of the interests of the wider 'Ripperological' community.
I happen to also strongly believe that this would get the best price for the family – assuming the documents are authentic.

[Jenni Shelden]

Frankly Trevor’s previous books, where he got his sources from, whether or not he plagiarised them, and the quality of his previously proposed authenticator has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it would be advisable to have the Swanson collection sold (and in the process authenticated) by a reputable auction house.

It is 100% irrelevant and is an example of ‘playing the man’ and not what he says – on this thread.
I have never suggested using Trevor’s proposed expert and I have no interest in it.
The most practical resolution would be to do it via an auction house in conjunction with a TV program.
These ad hominem attacks are however par for the course when any attempt is made to critically discuss the Marginalia.

It is clearly up to the family where they sell it, but what I am concerned about is how it should be dealt with from the selfish vantage point of the interests of the wider 'Ripperological' community.
I happen to also strongly believe that this would get the best price for the family – assuming the documents are authentic.

No but Trevor did and he contributed to this thread.

You can't control what other people do just because you started the thread I'm afraid.

But since you mention it, what tests would you say were relevant and what did you mean suggesting Dr Davies was personally close, what evidence d o you have for this?

Jenni

[Ally]

Frankly Trevor’s previous books, where he got his sources from, whether or not he plagiarised them, and the quality of his previously proposed authenticator has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it would be advisable to have the Swanson collection sold (and in the process authenticated) by a reputable auction house.

It is 100% irrelevant and is an example of ‘playing the man’ and not what he says – on this thread.

Do learn to read before you jump in with your hysterical and baseless tantrums, there's a lad. The plagiarism and "the man" is relevant because Trevor is offering himself up as a person to be involved in the authentication of the Marginalia through HIS EXPERTS and his funding and his involvement, and due to revelations regarding his professional standards his involvement would taint the process. Indeed the more that is learned of what he considers "experts" and reputable authentication the more it becomes apparent why he should not be involved in any important matter of Ripperology. He doesn't appear to understand anything remotely related to academic standards or rigor.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

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

Well quite apart from the fact that her own website confirms that she has no particular expertise in the field you claim she is paramount in, ("personality profiler" - what the hell is that?) there might just be objections to her testimony on the grounds of an over-cosey relationship to an important personna in the case...and it's more than coffee and biscuits isn't it Trevor?

The fact that Diane Simpson and Trevor Marriott are booked as lecturers on the same season's Cunard cruises (a narrow field) surely cannot be accidental can it? Apologies if I'm wrong but it's close enough to be suspicious is it not...wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?

Or isn't that suggestive enough for an honest commenter like you Trevor?

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Jenni

No your cap doesn’t fit.
I totally reject your claims for innuendo – I have been totally open and upfront about my opinion regarding Dr Davies – you may read your sub text into what I have said it if you wish, that has nothing to do with me.

Check your dictionary definition again.
I didn’t insinuate anything about Dr Davies. I said things openly.
I didn’t say anything disparaging about him. If someone questions something I say I do not take it as being disparaging so why should me questioning Dr Davies conclusions be in any way disparaging? Unless you think he is beyond question.
Is suggesting he may have been sub consciously influenced by things disparaging? Of course it isn’t as we are all from time to time sub consciously influenced.
Was I insulting Dr Davies? I certainly don’t think so.
Was there some hidden meaning that was meant to insult Dr Davies? No. But perhaps you have read things into what I have said – that seems to have happened before.

For example did I say Dr Davies had a ‘personal relationship’ with the Swanson family? You keep saying I did but I am pretty sure I didn’t (without trawling back through every word I have said).

Whether or not you were the first person to say ‘smear and innuendo’ I am not sure as plenty of pathetic claims have been made in this thread – but you certainly did make those claims (post 131).

Remember when you called me to task when I pocked a bit of fun at Phil for being a hypocrite as he had argued in a contradictory manner on another thread?
You said that I shouldn’t judge him in one thread for what he had said on another thread, but to address his argument – whether it was a hypocritical one or not.
But when Trevor is attacked for things he has said in different threads – you join in! That makes you… a Marginalist!

I have addressed the test issue and the way Dr Davies may have been subconsciously influenced.
I have repeatedly on other threads and on this and another forum gone into detail regarding flaws in the testing and areas for concern and suggested ways they could be tested – and if I have time I will re post them here.
Marginalists take up a regular and false refrain that no other tests have been suggested and that there is no grounds for suspicion. These points have been covered many times. But they have selective hearing.

On this thread I said the 1923 letter could be tested and the News of the World correspondence verified.
Did you miss that?
If the corroborative items are authentic then it lends weight to the marginalia being authentic.
Further
Dr Davies could be asked to clarify why he said in his first report that he detected signs of a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism in the shakey handwriting.
I reject your claim that I need to suggest tests anyway. All I have to do is point out problems with the conclusions drawn by Dr Davies (which does not involve innuendo) and suggest a valid way of having the documents re-tested. Which I have done.

[Lechmere]

duplicate!

[Lechmere]

Ally
I think I’ll leave the hysteria and tantrums to you. You seem to have an emotional investment in this issue.
You asked why I hadn’t commented on Trevor’s authenticator. I hadn’t partly because I was busy doing something productive and partly because there is obviously no prospect of it happening and so it is not a suggestion I had given any thought to. For what it’s worth I wouldn’t regard it as a good test.

[Ally]

Interesting isn't it. You create a thread for the sole purpose of pissing on how someone is disposing of their private property and then, when all your lame rationalizations and weak arguments are shot down, you cry how other people have some sort of emotional investment in it, they are all at fault and overreacting to your baseless insinuations, and make absolutely hysterical hypocritical comments about threads and critiques exactly like the ones you are making devalue the object in question and basically are completely oblivious to the log protruding from your own eye, as you are too busy attempting to point out the splinter in your neighbors.

I love watching pathological obliviousness on display. I wonder if it could be an actual DSM entry?

[Lechmere]

Why should we still have reason to question the Marginalia?

In his first report Dr Davies highlighted that what he called: ‘the Set 2 entries show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions such as Parkinsonism.’

This is not the same as suggesting that the entries showed that they were written by an old person who was just showing the signs of age.
This was glossed over in the second report.
The shakey handwriting was explained by a handwritten letter (again in pencil) that was found dated 1923, which contained the useful (too useful?) comments:

‘writing with pencil my hand shakes paralytically and causes me to stop.'
And
‘I am sorry my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop.’

This letter was accepted uncritically to verify the shakey hand writing that Dr Davies noted in his first report.
This letter should be subjected to testing and all of Swanson’s existing correspondence, writing and notebooks should be examined for examples of shakey writing and critically examined with a view to seeing of it is possible that any of it could all be of recent origin.

Furthermore Dr Davies seems to have withdrawn his earlier claim that the entries showed evidence of a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism without saying why. This is a lose end that should be cleared up.
Nearly every form of Parkinsonism involves shakey hands, and mental deterioration and a ‘stone face’.
We can say with a fair degree of certainty that DS Swanson was not suffering from any form of Parkinsonism as he was recorded in his retirement as threading fishing flies (which takes very steady hands), messing about in Scottish salmon streams, and having all his faculties. Also the photographs of him in his old age do not show signs of him having a ‘stone face’.

For the Marginalia to be a forgery, Dr Davies postulated:
1) the copier would need access to considerable amounts of Donald Swanson’s writing from the relevant time.
2) the copier would need to have access to the book.
3) the copier would have to have been someone with a very high skill at copying; such people are rare.

I would suggest that they are not that rare and it is not that difficult.
I have said before that if a random assortment of British Officer POWs could forge German documents good enough to fool the Gestapo while in Colditz, then I am sure it would not be too difficult for an educated and intelligent person to forge (or arrange for something to be forged) a few lines in a book and a few letters.
Hypothetically. And that hypothetical possibility is all that is needed to take this further – otherwise why bother to call Dr Davies in the first place. Just to make sure it wasn’t a clumsy forgery?

Is there any reason to believe that any sort of malpractice has occurred with respect to the Margnalia?
We have reason to think that the provenance of the book was tampered with.

In the (purported) unpublished 1981 News of the World article, Jim Swanson was quoted as saying:

‘As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book’.
He also said
‘The book is called “The Lighter Side of My Official Life” and was published in 1905.’

Neither of these claims were true. The book was presented by someone called Fred, not Anderson and the book was published in 1910.
However an unrelated letter from Anderson to DS Swanson dated 1905 was pasted into the inside of the book.
Did DS Swanson paste this letter there?
No.
When the book was seen in 1987 by two different people the letter was not there. In other words when the (purported) 1981 article was written, the dedication from Fred would have been clearly visible along with the publication date.
So why was it claimed that the book had been presented by Anderson in 1905?
Clearly at a later date – later than 1987 - the letter was stuck in the book, covering the dedication from Fred.
Jim Swanson must have knowingly made a false claim that the book was presented by Anderson in 1905.

Unless the 1981 News of the World article wasn’t actually written in 1981.
That article didn’t appear until July 2011. The same month that the News of the World closed down.
It was discovered in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum and no one knows (or admits to) how it got there.
This News of the World article and other News of the World items could be checked out with News International.

[Lechmere]

Nice to see you address the points Ally.

[Monty]

Surely this thread was created with regards the sale of the marginalia,

Or was it?

Monty

[Monty]

When in Rome.

Hi Trevor



Well quite apart from the fact that her own website confirms that she has no particular expertise in the field you claim she is paramount in, ("personality profiler" - what the hell is that?) there might just be objections to her testimony on the grounds of an over-cosey relationship to an important personna in the case...and it's more than coffee and biscuits isn't it Trevor?

The fact that Diane Simpson and Trevor Marriott are booked as lecturers on the same season's Cunard cruises (a narrow field) surely cannot be accidental can it? Apologies if I'm wrong but it's close enough to be suspicious is it not...wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?

Or isn't that suggestive enough for an honest commenter like you Trevor?

All the best

Dave

An independent expert huh?

"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."

Quote of the thread. Experts word is only opinion unless an issue is raised.

Now I know the standard of your self proclamation as an expert.

All makes sense.

Monty
.

[The Good Michael]

Why should we still have reason to question the Marginalia?
unless the 1981 News of the World article wasn’t actually written in 1981.
That article didn’t appear until July 2011. The same month that the News of the World closed down.
It was discovered in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum and no one knows (or admits to) how it got there.
This News of the World article and other News of the World items could be checked out with News International.

Forgery motive...I mean, realistic motive?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Why should we still have reason to question the Marginalia?

In his first report Dr Davies highlighted that what he called: ‘the Set 2 entries show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions such as Parkinsonism.’

This is not the same as suggesting that the entries showed that they were written by an old person who was just showing the signs of age.
This was glossed over in the second report.
The shakey handwriting was explained by a handwritten letter (again in pencil) that was found dated 1923, which contained the useful (too useful?) comments:

‘writing with pencil my hand shakes paralytically and causes me to stop.'
And
‘I am sorry my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop.’

This letter was accepted uncritically to verify the shakey hand writing that Dr Davies noted in his first report.
This letter should be subjected to testing and all of Swanson’s existing correspondence, writing and notebooks should be examined for examples of shakey writing and critically examined with a view to seeing of it is possible that any of it could all be of recent origin.

Furthermore Dr Davies seems to have withdrawn his earlier claim that the entries showed evidence of a neurological condition such as Parkinsonism without saying why. This is a lose end that should be cleared up.
Nearly every form of Parkinsonism involves shakey hands, and mental deterioration and a ‘stone face’.
We can say with a fair degree of certainty that DS Swanson was not suffering from any form of Parkinsonism as he was recorded in his retirement as threading fishing flies (which takes very steady hands), messing about in Scottish salmon streams, and having all his faculties. Also the photographs of him in his old age do not show signs of him having a ‘stone face’.

For the Marginalia to be a forgery, Dr Davies postulated:
1) the copier would need access to considerable amounts of Donald Swanson’s writing from the relevant time.
2) the copier would need to have access to the book.
3) the copier would have to have been someone with a very high skill at copying; such people are rare.

I would suggest that they are not that rare and it is not that difficult.
I have said before that if a random assortment of British Officer POWs could forge German documents good enough to fool the Gestapo while in Colditz, then I am sure it would not be too difficult for an educated and intelligent person to forge (or arrange for something to be forged) a few lines in a book and a few letters.
Hypothetically. And that hypothetical possibility is all that is needed to take this further – otherwise why bother to call Dr Davies in the first place. Just to make sure it wasn’t a clumsy forgery?

Is there any reason to believe that any sort of malpractice has occurred with respect to the Margnalia?
We have reason to think that the provenance of the book was tampered with.

In the (purported) unpublished 1981 News of the World article, Jim Swanson was quoted as saying:

‘As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book’.
He also said
‘The book is called “The Lighter Side of My Official Life” and was published in 1905.’

Neither of these claims were true. The book was presented by someone called Fred, not Anderson and the book was published in 1910.
However an unrelated letter from Anderson to DS Swanson dated 1905 was pasted into the inside of the book.
Did DS Swanson paste this letter there?
No.
When the book was seen in 1987 by two different people the letter was not there. In other words when the (purported) 1981 article was written, the dedication from Fred would have been clearly visible along with the publication date.
So why was it claimed that the book had been presented by Anderson in 1905?
Clearly at a later date – later than 1987 - the letter was stuck in the book, covering the dedication from Fred.
Jim Swanson must have knowingly made a false claim that the book was presented by Anderson in 1905.

Unless the 1981 News of the World article wasn’t actually written in 1981.
That article didn’t appear until July 2011. The same month that the News of the World closed down.
It was discovered in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum and no one knows (or admits to) how it got there.
This News of the World article and other News of the World items could be checked out with News International.

Not forgetting James Swansons statement in which he stated that in 1910 when Donald Swanson purportedly wrote the annotations he was not suffering from any writing impairment caused by any affliction or illness.

Interesting comment was Jam es Swanson telling the truth? If he was then that puts a whole new slant on this marginalia. If he wasn't then what was his motive for making that statement ?

Part of Dr Davies test was to try to eliminate James Swanson from any suspicion of being a party to forging the annotations. In an attempt to negate him Dr Davies was provided with a photocopy of James Swansons handwriting.

A handwriting expert, to be able to make a proper examination needs the original documents. Hence Diane Simpson asking to be provided with the original marginalia.

Those handful or researchers who will not have anything said against the marginalia or the Swanson family suggest that Dr Davies has now eliminated James Swanson from any further suspicion. This part of Dr Davies test is one of the flaws mentioned previously for the reasons stated above and in my opinion has not eliminated him totally.

As to checking it out with News International they told me that as the 1981 article was never published it would not have been retained. So we are back to Sandells article minus the name Kosminski which then appears in the 1987 published article, convenient do you not think?