Private sale

[Trevor Marriott]

This is all about 'agendas' as far as I'm concerned.

We have the usual veiled accusations of forgery aimed at people known, and the refusal to accept the judgements of 2 handwriting analysts (Totty and Davies), whose reputations are basically being stomped all over.

Another thing is the readiness to accept the 'opinion' of one analyst (Simpson)over the 'opinion' of others. Why should this be? Basically, it looks like some people are going to continually doubt the findings of experts until one comes up with the 'right' answer, in other words, the judgement some want to hear.

Utter madness.

No one is asking anyone to accept the opinions of any of the experts. As has been stated they are only opinions given by all in good faith to the best of their professional abilities, and there has been no smear campaign lodged against any of them.

As they only give opinions everyone has a right to challenge them as would be the case in a court, and as such these experts should stand up and be counted and be asked to answer important questions about the way they carried out the tests and their subsequent results. It is only then that people may be able to form their own opinions as to the authenticity of all or part of the annotations.

However many have gone out on a limb by suggesting that the opinions given by these experts conclusivley prove the authenticity of the marginalia. The evidence of Totty and Davies has not been tested !

The question is how accurate and reliable are the opinions ? Is there any other corroboration to support the proving or disproving of the annotations as all being written by Donald Swanson? As it stands there is more to suggest that the annotations in part or in total may not have been written by Donald Swanson.

Those that support its authenticity can look at it which ever way they like and can argue till the cows come home but the reality as stated above is there for all to see and will not go away until perhaps further steps are taken to address the points raised above.

[Lechmere]

Chris

I have never said that Dr Davies acted in an unprofessional manner. You have real problems with comprehension. I said that it is quite possible that sub consciously he may have been swayed. That is a human characteristic. It happens to us all. It has no bearing on his professionalism.

I have said that the 1923 letter should be tested and indicated what it could be checked against.
I have said that the News of the World items should be verified – probably via New International. Or also by looking at the paper and ink on the unused article.
I have suggested that Dr Davies could be asked to explain his parkinsonism comment.

I have highlighted the areas for concern – the areas that need to be looked into. The unresolved matters that should be closed off to give the Marginalia a clean bill of health so a proper and profitable sale can be arranged for the family. So the document can take its place, unquestioningly, as source material in ‘Ripperology’. Or be rejected.

There are probably other issues that I have forgotten from previous discussions (or should I say unseemly rows, as that is the manner in which the Marginalia is discussed by the unhelpful friends of the family) and no doubt other people would chip in with ideas and any potential examiner (such as a team at an established auction house) would possibly want to look at still other areas.

But it really isn’t for me to suggest specific tests. You seem to think it is and you seem to imagine that by repeating that mantra you have scored some sort of wonder goal. I have news for you – you haven’t.

Of course the family’s friends could advise them to ignore all this and plough on with a quite behind to scenes sale for a lesser value.

[Jenni Shelden]

Where you mentioned Dr Davies personal connection

Jenni



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)..

Dear Edward,
I am going to make this simple for you, as apparently you have some form of problem, which stops you from remebering what you said yesterday/earlier in the week and what you meant when you said it. I'm sorry to hear about this. i am also sorry to hear that you feel unable to go back and look at what you said in a thread you started. Clearly, you were interested enough to start a thread, but not to back up the claims you made. My mistake.

The fact is, you have not been upfront, I asked you, as did others, repeatedly and from the time you said it (so you knew what you meant) to explain what you were saying about Dr Davies and you failed to do so on every occassion. I will not have you come back here and make me out to be a liar in your misguided attempt to question my motivations or in someway imply i am the wrong in the wrong. No that will not happen with me, you might think you can get away with it, but not with me I am afraid.

I am going to address your points in isolation to make it clear for you starting with this. Please see the below quotes from earlier in THIS thread where you said this.

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris
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.
Are you crystal clear about that?

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.

Here's one - you suggest Dr Davies is comparable to a mate

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
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.

This is what I mean, you said he wwas too close to the principals involved.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lechmere

Yet again you evade the question about tests.

Lets put this question of tests to bed because personally I am sick of you and Jenni keep asking the same questions about what new tests can be done.

The answer is probably no new tests although there is the graphite tests which may or may not be an option.

The other new test would be a complete new examination by an independent handwriting expert who would need to be provided with the marginalia and all connecting documents as well as a full report on all other relevant matters surrounding the annotations.

That expert should then be given the opportunity of being asked questions by all interested parties on the final conclusions given wether they prove or disprove its authenticity.

As is stands at the moment Dr Davies has been protected from being questioned by certain parties who are clearly scared that any questioning by another who is familiar with such examinations might be detrimental to their cause.

[Jenni Shelden]

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

Here's another,
I know you will say you answered this as he was in their house, but frankly that is laughable to what you said and the clear implications behind it you would have let stand if you had not been called out on it

best wishes
jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Lets put this question of tests to bed because personally I am sick of you and Jenni keep asking the same questions about what new tests can be done.

The answer is probably no new tests although there is the graphite tests which may or may not be an option.

The other new test would be a complete new examination by an independent handwriting expert who would need to be provided with the marginalia and all connecting documents as well as a full report on all other relevant matters surrounding the annotations.

That expert should then be given the opportunity of being asked questions by all interested parties on the final conclusions given wether they prove or disprove its authenticity.

As is stands at the moment Dr Davies has been protected from being questioned by certain parties who are clearly scared that any questioning by another who is familiar with such examinations might be detrimental to their cause.

And there we have it , the reason you couldnt say what tests you meant before was ...?

You have made me asked continually for a day with just bluster as response for what reason..?

[Lechmere]

Sally
The Maybrick watch didn’t sell as anything Maybrick is regarded with deep suspicion.
The way the Marginalia is being handled it will end up the same.

[Jenni Shelden]

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!.

Hi Ed,
thanks for reminding me of thta, that was because you brought up something that had no relevance to the discussion i.e. who Phil's suspect was, as an answer to why your suspect was valid.
I don't think I said that you shouldn't judge him on one thread for what he had said on another, my point was that his suspect was irrelevant to the problems with your suspect. I stand by that.

I don't recall attacking Trevor for things he hadn't said or implied on this thread. Even then, they would be things directly related to the topic in hand i.e the SM, not things un directly related.

If attacking Trevor Marriott is all that is necessary to make me a marginalist, I guess you have me banged to rights. I think Trevor Marriott is talking absolute baloney and whenever he is called up to question his opinions he tries to bluster his way out of it with accusations.

Do you two know each other well?

The implication was that I was a marginalist with some kind of hidden agenda to say what I have,
kindly explain what this is, or retract the statement

Jenni

[Stewart P Evans]

A Point

...
As to this purported public interest and market for the Marginalia - Did you see Channel 4’s ‘Four Rooms’ recently, in which the Maybrick Watch was offered for sale? The asking price was in a similar ball park to that being bandied about for the Marginalia. Interestingly, not one of the dealers was willing to pay more than a few hundred pounds for it. I think that tells you something about the market value of Ripper memorabilia.
...

A point here that I had to pick up on.

There is no way that the Swanson collection should be compared with the 'Maybrick watch' in order to reach an idea of value. For a start the 'Maybrick watch' (which, by the way, has never been proven to have ever belonged to a Maybrick) is almost universally regarded as a fake Ripper relic. A point which, if I remember correctly, was made by the dealers. However, there is no doubt that the Swanson collection originates with the Swanson family and no real doubt (in my opinion) that Donald Swanson wrote the 'marginalia' (which term includes the endpaper annotation naming 'Kosminski').

Also 'Kosminski', as witness Macnaghten, was a Ripper suspect. There is not a jot of evidence to suggest that Maybrick was a Ripper suspect. Taking all this into account, the value of the Swanson collection must far exceed any valuation put on the 'Maybrick watch'.

[Fisherman]

Jenni!

Before you spend any more time trying to prove an improvable point, you may want to recognize that fact that Edward consistently says that Dr Davies was POTENTIALLY too close to the family.

That is not the same as saying that claiming that it was the case that this was so.

What Edward does is to point out POSSIBLE holes in the seams of the Marginalia authenticity.

You must keep these things apart if you are to contribute to a useful discussion. Saying that Edward has laid down that there was a friendship that was harmful is not true, and will only inflame the discussion further. It is inflamed enough as it is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni!

Before you spend any more time trying to prove an improvable point, you may want to recognize that fact that Edward consistently says that Dr Davies was POTENTIALLY too close to the family.

That is not the same as saying that claiming that it was the case that this was so.

What Edward does is to point out POSSIBLE holes in the seams of the Marginalia authenticity.

You must keep these things apart if you are to contribute to a useful discussion. Saying that Edward has laid down that there was a friendship that was harmful is not true, and will only inflame the discussion further. It is inflamed enough as it is.

The best,
Fisherman

Well Fishman, I understand that you andf Edward potentially are in a relationship with spongebob Squarepants

best wishes
Jenni

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Sally;275593]Ed –

this wasn't addressed to me, but forgive me for replying..

What a storm in a teacup.

It's an issue which would be important to anyone thinking of shelling out £20, ooo odd. It's also an issue for scholars of the period. It's got some importance.

.

There’s no need to look for any ‘suspicious’ circumstances there. As a researcher yourself, I’m surprised that you don’t know that – although I suppose to be fair if you mainly used digitised online records for your research you might not.

This is a cheap shot. I happen to know because I have used it in the past against Ed, but I also have learned by being shown directly that he is probably one of the few ( ? !!!!) people here that knows how to use and interpret primary sources. I can certainly vouch for the fact that he mainly doesn't use digitised online records before asserting something.
Infact, as I know that he lives in London, and is a complicated perfectionist that knows very well how to pull the maximum from the archives - I wouldn't disparage anything that he said quite so quickly if I were you.

Secondly, you speak of further tests. What further tests would you like to see done, and how do you imagine such tests would resolve the question of forgery (as you evidently consider there to be)?

Well the obvious thing would be to tests against material independant of those supplied by Nevill Swanson. I don't buy into the tests done against one letter, that might have been forged just to support the forgery of the Marginalia ( that's what it points to). I'd like to see some proof that DSS did have a shaky hand at the period in which the Marginalia were supposed to have been written...so far I've seen evidence that the contrary was true.

Say there was a test for graphite (I have no idea whether there is or not, but I can see no other obvious ‘scientific’ way of testing the marginalia for fakery). And say that this test determined that a different pencil had been used to add the name ‘Kosminski’. What do you think would that prove? That it had been written by a different hand? No. That it had been written at a different time? No. That it was faked? No.

No proof, as you could surely buy a period pencil. Look more closely at DSS's lifein this period ? Look more closely at Jim's writing ?

I ask because whilst I’m all for proper testing, I really can’t think how the recent testing of this document is wanting?

It is very wanting -it is supported by documents which all support each other...knock one down and the whole castle of cards falls. None of the cards seem solid.

Perhaps you're looking for something that doesn't exist.

But with no prior agenda, what is there to lose or gain by being proved wrong ? It's a wish for truth and clarity -that's all.

Thirdly, I think I agree with others who have suggested that you may be overstating the ‘value’ of the marginalia.

Rubbish. If it were genuine then it would be an important historical document pertaining to a subject of international general interest. There is not much interest in the Marginalia because it is not being promoted -why ? Could it be that the owners would rather off load it quietly for a large sum rather then subject it to scrutiny ? Why ??

Say it’s faked. Ok – and then what? The forger would make a fortune from revealing the identity of Jack the Ripper? Well, no, because the marginalia doesn’t reveal the identity of the Ripper, does it? All that it proves, even if genuine, is that Kosminski was considered to be the likely culprit by a couple of senior police officials at the time.

Well some people seem to think that the police suspects are worth more than other suspects ? The annotations are interesting anyway by a senior policeman of the time but wouldn't reveal much. Add in 'in the know' JTR info, and their value increases by a great deal ?

Interesting though that is – and not to dismiss or under play it - it isn’t proof of culpability.

Of course not, but we have seen that some people will take the opinions of contemporary policemen above others.

I can’t help thinking, personally, that if the marginalia is faked, the forger missed a golden opportunity.

I'm sure that he got a lot of personal satisfaction out of it.

But as it stands, it isn’t the Golden Ticket at all, is it?

free money ?

As to this purported public interest and market for the Marginalia - Did you see Channel 4’s ‘Four Rooms’ recently, in which the Maybrick Watch was offered for sale? The asking price was in a similar ball park to that being bandied about for the Marginalia. Interestingly, not one of the dealers was willing to pay more than a few hundred pounds for it. I think that tells you something about the market value of Ripper memorabilia.

But the Maybrick story is even more soppy than the Marginalia story.

Aside from a comparatively small number of enthusiasts, to whom they are priceless; there isn’t the market for such things that you seem to envisage. It’s a niche market – and a small one, too.

Not if the items were genuine.

Given that, surely a private sale is the sensible way forward?

Absolutely ! ..if you want to rip people off ..

I think unless one has a dog in this fight, there really isn’t an issue here.

If we are interested in the truth, then there is.

[Fisherman]

Well Fishman, I understand that you andf Edward potentially are in a relationship with spongebob Squarepants

best wishes
Jenni

No matter who is in any relationship with whom, Jenni, it STILL applies that you are accusing Edward of having said something he has never said.

It would be refreshing if you simply recognized this instead of throwing wild punches around you on other issues.

Then again, avoiding to answer is also answering.

Just saying,

Fisherman