Private sale

[Sally]

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.

Ed –

Well yes, the diary and the watch could be said to be regarded with suspicion by the majority of ‘Ripperologists’ – although I’d suggest it’s more a case of scepticism than suspicion, personally.

I doubt Ripperological perception and opinion has much bearing on public interest though. If that were true, the prevalent popular perception of Jack the Ripper wouldn’t be of a top-hatted toff with a cane and cape, would it? No matter what you, or I, or any number of people interested in the truth of the matter may think or say, that vision of Gentleman Jack has proved impossible to kill.

I’m afraid that the simple facts of the matter are that nobody knows who Jack the Ripper was; and therefore, any item of memorabilia connected with the case is just that – connected with the case. No item to date can be shown to have in fact belonged to; or to pertain to, Jack the Ripper – and thus have a very limited appeal to the non-enthusiast.

If the identity of the Ripper was ever established, then of course, any item associated with him/her would be very valuable – no doubt.

The dealers in ‘Four Rooms’ were disinterested in the Maybrick Watch for precisely that reason. Without a demonstrable connection to Jack the Ripper – which is not possible as things currently stand - it’s just a mediocre Victorian watch. It was valued accordingly.

Without a demonstrable connection to Jack the Ripper, the Swanson book, with its marginalia, is just an old book: of interest to Ripper enthusiasts and police historians alone.

[Lechmere]

Jenni

Ah – so you have no example of me saying that Dr Davies had a ‘personal relationship’ with the Swanson family.
Why don’t you just admit that?
That means I don’t have a problem remembering what I said – doesn’t it?

It is increasingly painful having to explain these things but the ‘mate’ allegory was not to be taken literally. Dr Davies isn’t a literary critic is he? It doesn’t involve a book that had been written. Every aspect of the allegory was chosen to be unlike the actual circumstances – including the ‘mate’ reference.
I used that allegory to illustrate how a professional person might give a judgement that is swayed by human factors. I hope that is clear to you now.

The reason I didn’t pick up on what you were asking is that it should really have been obvious to you that I was not suggesting that Dr Davies was literally the ‘mate’ of anyone involved in this processes for simple reason that I spelt out his connections.

But I see that what you actually meant was that I had said that Dr Davies was too close to the principals involved. Yes indeed!
I spelt that out to include the Metropolitan Police. I would include the family and his conducting the test while in their house and I would include his relationship with ‘Ripperologists’.
Usually I used the modifier – potentially – and I would stand by that - with the modifier. I have given reasons for this and I have given examples where he may have overlooked issues.
This leads me to suspect that he may not have been using all his critical faculties.
I do not for one moment think that he was consciously swayed, or that he acted unprofessionally.
You can ‘call out’ all you like.

I notice that when I mention specific areas for concern and areas that should be tested they are met with the silence of a graveyard.

I didn’t say that Marginalists per se have a hidden agenda –that paranoia again.
You are acting on this thread as a Marginalist – so that is what you are!
Is it an offensive term?
I think you are taking yourself too seriously there Jenni.

[Lechmere]

Frau retro
You are coming close to suggesting I suffer from OCD or a form of autism.
Retract!

[Sally]

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

You are correct. It wasn't addressed to you.

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.

Whatever - I don't feel the need to justify myself to you. I will say that I was simply making an observation - although the fact that you think using online records for research is somehow an indication of a lesser skill set is informative.

I think the rest of your post is based on an assumption of conspiracy. Since I don't share that assumption, I have nothing further to add.

[Ally]

I feel the need to make a statement here so that my position is perfectly clear before I go back and write individual responses to posts.

In regards to all the head shaking and bemoaning that "experts" are having their opinions critiqued and torn down, as if rigorous analysis and not taking things at face value were a bad thing, I have to state without reservation that I am absolutely FINE with anyone and everyone critiquing/slamming/ripping Davis' opinion to shreds if they have a valid line of argument.. My problem with handwriting analysis is it is a psuedo-science, there is no definitive and therefore no expert opinion is beyond critique. However, to state that the man might have been swayed by a cozy atmosphere into subconsciously shading his opinion in favor of the man giving him a cup of tea, is not, in my opinion a valid (or even credible) line of argument.

Then when you add in the other "expert" being bandied about isn't even an analyst but a handwriting "fortune-teller" who claims to be able to tell if you were a serial killer by the slant of your "a's" ... well just give me a break.

In short, I do not have a problem with anyone and anything being questioned, up to and including whether Jim Swanson forged the marginalia, but the arguments need to have some validity and integrity to them.

[AdamNeilWood]

I am slightly surprised that you are asking why the letter should be questioned.

If you gave me a Ł10 note and for whatever reason I wanted to check that it was not a forgery, it would not be very sensible for me to check it against another Ł10 that you had given me. Would it?

The only possible reason that Dr Davies tested the Marginalia was to ensure that it is not a forgery. Testing the handwriting in the Marginalia against another sample of handwriting from the same source is not exactly what you would characterise as an ideal test.

Surely this is not difficult to follow?

If you are saying the source was Jim Swanson, the 1923 letter didn't come via him. It was sent to Nevill Swanson by a cousin last year (see below).

It might be the case that no other samples are available, after all a valid sample would have to be from the last few years of DS Swanson’s life. That being the case the 1923 letter should have been closely scrutinised. It should be very closely looked at. There is the possibility, I think, that there may also be later notes in DS Swanson’s note book or address book.
There is no indication that the 1923 letter was put under any scrutiny. Particularly as it only came to light comparatively recently.

We have been previously told that there is a pile of other correspondence that still hadn’t been gone through. Perhaps there are other relevant letters in that pile? Although obviously from the same source he more items the less likely they are to be forgeries and possibly some may be in ink and so capable of being tested more rigorously.
It is to be regretted that all these items of correspondence were not sorted through back in the 1980s when various people first had contact with the family.
No credible explanation has been offered for the failure to properly evaluate all this documentation.

Drip feeding material out many years later is also a cause for concern. That again should be obvious.
I don’t know what the explanation for this is. I don’t know whether the family have been poorly advised or whether it was their own choice.

I've said this at least twice before, but the letters and address book didn't come from the same source, ie Jim Swanson. When his aunt died in November 1980 the family papers were divided up; the Marginalia and other crime material went to Jim, with the address book, letters and other papers going to other family members.

It was only last year when the family decided to sell the DSS collection that everything was sent by various cousins to Nevill Swanson to collate.

That is why they appear to be what you describe as 'drip fed' - Nevill is only recently 'discovering' them.

And yes you're right, it is a shame that all those reporters and researchers in the 1980s didn't demand that Jim Swanson contact his brothers and sisters insisting they send over all their personal papers for scrutiny.

If they wish to make money from it – and I don’t blame them for that – and this is the second time they are doing it, then they should expect to be held up for examination.
The history of the Marginalia is almost a case study of how not to proceed.
Material has been lost. The marginalia was written over. A false dedication was stuck in the front. The supporting documentation has been drip fed out.
It is possible that some of the blame lies with people in the ‘Ripperological’ community who have dealings with them and who have not advised them well.
I don’t know what advice has been given and taken.

Yes you're right again - Paul Begg, Martin Fido and others advised Jim Swanson to draw red lines on the book. They told him it would be a great idea to paste an unrelated letter into the front. Keith Skinner advised Nevill to hold back the letters and address book.

But seriously, no, you don't know what advice was given or taken but that doesn't stop you calling it 'bad advice' or describing those involved as the 'unhelpful friends' of the Swansons.

If I had been involved I would immediately have asked to go through all the paperwork (and not rested until they did) and advised them to sell through a reputable auction house, and I would have tried (and succeeded – ha!) to set up a TV deal.

They have been advised to sell to through an auction house, and have had several discussions with one which specialises in crime and historical memorabilia. It's their decision as to how to proceed.

In case anyone thinks I am jealous that I was not involved – I am not. I am just setting out what should have been done.

You'll get your chance to 'advise' Nevill at the Conference, and I'll be very interested to hear how it goes.

[Ally]

Yes you're right again - Paul Begg, Martin Fido and others advised Jim Swanson to draw red lines on the book. They told him it would be a great idea to paste an unrelated letter into the front. Keith Skinner advised Nevill to hold back the letters and address book.

Is it definitively proven that Jim Swanson was the one who drew the red lines in the book?
ed.

You'll get your chance to 'advise' Nevill at the Conference, and I'll be very interested to hear how it goes.

Give Nevill a hug for me and tell him hi! Wish I could be there.

[AdamNeilWood]

Is it definitively proven that Jim Swanson was the one who drew the red lines in the book?
ed.

Hi Ally,

Jim Swanson owned a copy of Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts - after he died Nevill discovered red pen lines on a page describing the discovery of the Marginalia which were identical to those in Lighter Side.

[Ally]

Thanks Adam.

[John Bennett]

I am slightly surprised that you are asking why the letter should be questioned.

If you gave me a Ł10 note and for whatever reason I wanted to check that it was not a forgery, it would not be very sensible for me to check it against another Ł10 that you had given me. Would it?

The only possible reason that Dr Davies tested the Marginalia was to ensure that it is not a forgery. Testing the handwriting in the Marginalia against another sample of handwriting from the same source is not exactly what you would characterise as an ideal test.

Surely this is not difficult to follow?

We're not dealing with printed bank notes here, Ed.

You appear to be suggesting that there may be forged documents amongst the batch supplied by the Swanson family. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is how it appears.

Anyway - I'm beginning to regret the decision to enter this debate. God knows what got into me. I think I'll leave everybody else to it as I neither have the time nor the inclination any more.

[Rubyretro]

Whatever

- is the modern way of replying 'can't answer'; it speaks volumes

[Ally]

So I was going to go back and write individual responses to individual posts, but my god, my brain short-circuited from the sheer stupidity of the arguments being presented.

So now it is being claimed we should test the letter that was used to authenticate the Marginalia because apparently that is now being considered a forgery as well... and what precisely are they going to test that against? Another letter that they will then claim is a forgery and needs to be tested... against what, yet another letter that will then be accused of being a forgery and on and on into utter farce.

And the guy who has been banging on for years about an independent outside second analysis has gone to a freaking writing fortune-teller and wants to present that as "conclusive evidence".

I am all for questioning the Swanson Marginalia, it's something of a hobby of mine, but ye gods people, come up with some intelligent rebuttal. Stupidity makes my head hurt.

[Lechmere]

Adam
Thanks for the new information.
For example I'm not sure if I was aware of the exact mechanics of how the 1923 letter came to light and I hadn't heard the evidence 'against' Jim Swanson for the red lines.
I was however aware that the collection was broken up.
But when I said same source I did not mean Jim Swanson specifically - I meant the family.

Not advising the family to get all their documents together at an early date is bad advice.
I strongly suspect the family have been advised who to approach now as well.
The 'unhelpful friends' are specifically the forum attack dogs who try to shout down every criticism raised and who reduce the discussion to that more commonly seen in a school playground. And who by their antics only create a climate of suspicion.

[Ally]

Not advising the family to get all their documents together at an early date is bad advice.

What a load of twaddle. First non-advice is not bad advice and no one has any business telling a family what to do with their property. It's none of anyone's business. What possible reason was there to badger family members to go through piles of old dusty family crap for no particular reason up until this point?

Once again you seem to think that because YOU find something of significance great-aunt Marge has some obligation to go sifting through her crap to find something that may or may not even have existed that you consider worthy documentation.

You are attempting to presume things based on hindsight and that 20 years ago, people would have known that they were going to sell this as a collection.

Absolute twaddle.

[AdamNeilWood]

That's the thing - it's not new information. The discovery of the 1923 letter was described here and also JTRForums during discussion of my article, and the red pen lines actually appeared in the article, complete with a photograph.

I agree with you that it would be good to have evidence from an unrelated source, but the bottom line is that we don't. We are lucky that the Swanson family retained so many documents which have enabled us to piece together a chain of events, and even luckier that they have allowed access to them. If something turns up from somewhere else then great.

Who do you think should have advised Jim Swanson in the early 1980s, between discovering the Marginalia and it finally appearing in the Telegraph in 1987? Just who is responsible for the 'bad advice' of not suggesting he collate all the documentation?

You can suspect what you want, but it might surprise you to learn that Nevill Swanson is capable of thinking for himself, as you'll no doubt discover at the conference.

Can you name the 'forum dogs' who are friends and advisors to the Swansons, those whose antics are creating a climate of suspicion?