Private sale

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I somewhat doubt you will be forever be known as a ‘Marginalist’, although I will always think of you in that way now.
Just kidding.

I made the term up for this thread, so I guess I can make up what it means…

• In the context of this thread it was someone who does not address any of the points made in criticising the Marginalia and the process of its testing.
• Instead they attack the critics of the Marginalia in a rude and personal manner based on their own pre-loaded prejudices, as exhibited by the repeated asking of the same question even when it had obviously been answered and the wilful misinterpretation of what was said in that answer – again based on their own preconceived and invariably inaccurate notions of what the poster (usually but not always me) meant.
• It means failing to accept that when one of their repetitive questions is answered, that it is answered honestly, again because of their own preconceived notion of what is motivating the other person.
• It means being rude and aggressive without provocation.
• It means the inability to concede a single point, even to the extent of agreeing to disagree.
• It means looking through pages of posts for one stray or clumsily worded expression to somehow prove some obtuse point.
• It means adopting the role of ‘attack dog’ which in internet forum terms does not mean being a dog. It means defending their own standpoint by aggressively attacking anyone who puts forward a contrary notion to drown out their criticisms with personal abuse and misrepresentation.

Some but not all of these things you have been ‘guilty’ of on this thread. In my opinion.
But hey that was then and this is now!

[Chris]

Actually Chris I have answered all your points.
I have listed various aspects of his second report that suggested he was not being overly critical which I speculated might be down to sub conscious influences.

Where?

[Lechmere]

Chris - go look

Ally
One issue you may be able to offer an opinion on that has been troubling me since I opened this thread.
Is it shakey or shaky?

[Chris]

Chris - go look

Right. You've answered the question somewhere in the last 250 posts, but you won't say where. We really are being treated to every trick in the dismal world of Internet discussions, aren't we?

[Ally]

It depends if you are describing a) a robot b) a pizza joint in Brooklyn or c) your grasp of allegory.

You use it wrong to describe handwriting. It's shaky.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
I somewhat doubt you will be forever be known as a ‘Marginalist’, although I will always think of you in that way now.
Just kidding.

I made the term up for this thread, so I guess I can make up what it means…

• In the context of this tread it was someone who does not address any of the points made criticising the Marginalia and the process of its testing.
• Instead they attacked the critics of the Marginalia in a rude and personal manner based on their own pre-loaded prejudices, as exhibited by the repeated asking of the same question even when it had obviously been answered and the wilful misinterpretation of what was said in that answer – again based on their own preconceived and invariably inaccurate notions of what the poster (usually but not always me) meant.
• It means failing to accept that when one of their repetitive questions is answered, that it is answered honestly, again because of their own preconceived notion of what is motivating the other person.
• It means being rude and aggressive without provocation.
• It means the inability to concede a single point, even to the extent of agreeing to disagree.
• It means looking through pages of posts for one stray or clumsily worded expression to somehow prove some obtuse point.
• It means adopting the role of ‘attack dog’ which in internet forum terms does not mean being a dog. It means defending their own standpoint by aggressively attacking anyone who puts forward a contrary notion to drown out their criticisms with personal abuse and misrepresentation.

Some but not all of these things you have been ‘guilty’ of on this thread. In my opinion.
But hey that was then and this is now!

Hi Ed,
this makes me laugh (in the nicest possible way) because I have never been a vocal proponent of the marginalia, however, I do admit I do think that Dr Davies tests answered many of the questions I previously had about the marginalia. I do think the evidence shows that it is in Donald Swanson's handwriting.

You say not addressing the points, I don't think that is fair, it may have seemed to you like this, but I was asking you questions to work out what you meant. I can't possibly address the point if I am unclear what it is. Such as why I asked you what tests you wanted to see done, and what you meant re Dr Davies.

The thread did get bogged down at bit and unfortunately being at work it may be that I missed some of your points in the mire (other people piled in a muddied the water somewhat). I still don't think you really answered the questions until today. I think you will agree that once I knew what you meant, I was a lot better at attempting to discuss that!?

I genuinely don't feel I was rude to you (certainly not without provocation). However, you did start calling me names (marginalist) and then never explained this, which I admit got my back up quite a lot. In fact I really would respect you a lot more if you apologised.

Were my posts aggressive? I don't believe they were so, direct, yes, succinct, certainly, repetitive, as needed, yes to all these. I am just sick to death of people making disputes but not presenting evidence, as you mention previously, it has been very evident in this particular topic. There was some faint suggestions, the test were not adequate, Dr Davies was biased, other tests should be done. But no clear inference as to what this meant. How can I agree/disagree with you about tests (e.g) if I don't know what they are.

If someone says something I expect them to be able to back it up or explain it the first time they are asked, I think I asked politely the first time.

I really feel strongly the word was loaded with intent. Its possible this was not the case, but in Ripperology it often is (Pro-Druitist, Maybrickian, anti-diarist etc) so it was a fair assumption. Obviously it sounds like you were saying Marginalist as in pro and blinkered. This isn't the case. I was one of the people asking re those red lines for eg. I don't care a toss if the Marginalia is genuine or not, the fact is I think the facts show that it is genuine. But I don't think that gets us any further to the truth (i.e who was JtR).

You mention my supposed pre loaded prejudices, they didn't exist in relation to you, other than knowing you obviously don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper. I think you clearly have some pre loaded prejudices about me.

Let me tell you where I stand on this, if there is a problem with the tests on the Marginalia, not only am I not bothered, I'd be fine with being shown the evidence of this and if I'd seen the evidence and it can convinced me i'm happy to go with it. Let me tell you an example I have been an anti-diarist as long as I recall, but I happily conceded points that I felt were fair to pro-diarists, in fact I argued with fellow anti-diarists as to why they were wrong about them (The Miracle In the Library).

What I am concerned with is the truth. The truth and that is it. I don't like people throwing out speculation they can't back up with facts, whatever its about. It annoys me when people avoid answering questions and resort to trying to belittle others.

I feel that you became increasing smug and belittling, I even started to wonder if it was possible it was because I had asked you about something unrelated on a Lechmere thread recently.

I haven't conceded a point because you haven't made a point particularly, I have been trying to ask what you mean. In order to do see what I think .

I really think it would be helpful for you to make sure you understand this.

I really think it would equally be helpful to recognise that your calling me a marginalist and then not explaining it was uncalled for, I'm not being a bitch when I say you genuinely offended me

best wishes
Jenni

[Chris]

What I am concerned with is the truth. The truth and that is it. I don't like people throwing out speculation they can't back up with facts, whatever its about.

Me neither. Particularly when purely speculative suggestions are made that document examiners may have behaved unprofessionally or that the descendants of people involved with the case may have faked documents. And especially when that speculation involves such bizarre ideas as fake documents being planted in the Crime Museum in New Scotland Yard. When I read things like that I can only wonder what planet these people are living on.

But when it comes to people telling blatant lies about the findings of "handwriting experts" (i.e. graphologists) in order to try to discredit the marginalia, I can only wonder at their motivation. Is it essentially to do with making money, or is it sheer malice?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I have previously answered your queries, check post 63 but for the sake of completeness…

For the first report, the annotated copy of ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’ together with a notebook that had belonged to DS Swanson as a control sample, was sent to the Metropolitan Police’s Forensic Science Service, where Dr Davies examined it.
This was in 2006, very soon after the book had been loaned to the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
Dr Davies report was generally supportive of the Marginalia being genuine but expressed certain reservations about the shaky hand script.
This was an arms length investigation with distance between the examiner and the principals – Ripperologists, the family and also as the Metropolitan Police had only just obtained the book on loan there was no established Met link. Remember Dr Davies works for the Met.

Dr Davies was personally contacted by Adam Wood in 2012 in order to carry out a second test essentially to get a new opinion on the shaky text in the light of new documents being discovered. Dr Davies went to Bill Swanson’s house to conduct the test and Adam Wood was also present. By this time the Marginalia occupied centre stage at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum and had influenced the Met website to push Kosminski as the lead candidate along with the implication that Scotland Yard had in effect sussed out whodunit.
The link to the relevant page on the Metropolitan police website seems to be broken – see at the bottom of this page under the link ‘Swanson and Kosminski under the Metropolitan Police website’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Swanson

In every feature the circumstances under which Dr Davies conducted the two tests was different.
In the second test he was much closer to the principals. In the first test he was very much at arms length.
Before anyone suggests it, I am not accusing Adam Wood of acting improperly.
I suspect – but it is not the sort of thing that can be proved – that Dr Davies could have been sub consciously influenced by the different circumstances under which he carried out the second test which may have resulted in him being less critical than he might otherwise have been. In other words he may have been more too ready to accept things at face value.

Dr Davies accepted a letter dated 1923 as being in similar shaky style to the shaky text and in essence gave the Marginalia a clean bill of health.
I would suggest that the 1923 letter should not just be accepted at face value, that it in turn should be tested.
Dr Davies seems to have discounted the possibility that the Marginalia and associated documents could be more than a clumsy attempt at forgery – a slightly more sophisticated effort in other words – where a deliberate attempt at copying had been made.

Dr Davies reported the following:

When a piece of questioned writing is similar in all essential features to the known writing of a particular person there are only four ways in which this similarity can be explained:
1) the questioned writing is by the same person as the known writing.
2) the questioned writing is an attempt to copy the known writing.
3) the questioned writing has been produced from the known writing by tracing.
4) the questioned writing is by a different person from the known writing and the resemblance has occurred solely by chance.

Option 1) is innocence.
Option 2) is a deliberate attempt to forge and requires a degree of skill.
Option 3) is tracing which is a clumsy attempt to forge and Dr Davies found no evidence to suggest this had been done.
Option 4) is where the marginalia was written by someone who had similar but not exactly the same writing as DS Swanson. Dr Davies effectively ruled this out.

Dr Davies also ruled out Option 2) as it would take someone with unusual copying skills. He reported thus:

I found nothing that I would consider to be direct evidence of copying in the questioned writing. In order for the questioned writing to have been produced by copying the following circumstances would be required:
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.

The only actual stumbling block is point 3). That it would take a degree of skill.

As we know that someone, presumably Jim Swanson, had tampered with the copy of ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’ by sticking a misleading dedication note over the top of a genuine but less prestigious dedication, it would be advisable to show caution.
Furthermore there is the regrettable drip feed of documents – another indictor to show caution.
Lastly there is the strange collection of News of the World documents.

I would suggest these factors should result in a more cautious approach in ruling out option 3).

There is the purported unpublished article, supposedly by Charles Sandell, that mentions Kosminski and was dated 1981, but did not turn up until July 2011 in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
There are various other News of the World supporting documents that were found in July 2011.
There is the coincidence that the News of the World went out of publication in July 2011.

There is a further coincidence that the News of the World journalist who we are told dealt with the first attempt at publication, Chares Sandell, died in August 1987.
In late September 1987 Jim Swanson contacted the Telegraph about publishing a story about the Marginalia.

Was the version of the Marginalia that the Telegraph saw in 1987 the same as the version the News of the World saw in 1981?
Proof of this hangs on the veracity of the unpublished article that was found in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum. If it can be shown to be genuine then it will go a long way towards establishing the bona fides of the Marginalia itself.

Lastly – as Trevor accurately pointed out, given the controversy and given the need for caution as outlined above (under option 3), a second opinion on the handwriting using essentially the same methodology as used by Dr Davies would be extremely beneficial.
I have been recommending that this would best be carried out as part of a process of selling the collection via a reputable auction house and Adam seems to have indicated that this is a possibility.

[Chris]

There is a further coincidence that the News of the World journalist who we are told dealt with the first attempt at publication, Chares Sandell, died in August 1987.
In late September 1987 Jim Swanson contacted the Telegraph about publishing a story about the Marginalia.

What is the significance of your description of Charles Sandell's death as "a further coincidence"? You surely aren't suggesting that there is any connection between these events? Are there no depths to which you won't stoop?

[Lechmere]

Adam
I am sure you can appreciate that something posted on a marginalia thread on a forum can easily get buried and missed, hence my lack of knowledge about how the 1923 letter came to light.
Or perhaps I forgot. Who knows?
I missed the red line reference in your article – which as I have said before was the catalyst for my scepticism about the authenticity of the Marginalia. Prior to reading your article I just assumed it was genuine. I am sure that will be gratifying for you!

I don’t think I said that anyone should have advised the Swanson family prior to 1987 – was that a trick question?
But after 1987 various people have been in contact with the family.
The first thing I would have done would have been to ask and ask and ask again to see all correspondence from DS Swanson and point out the reasons why it is important to have the whole collection evaluated in one go.
If that advice was ignored I would point out the pitfalls for them in not doing so, where they to want to sell the collection in the future.
I don’t know if any such conversation took place and I would suggest it was the responsibility of whoever was present to ask and not wait to be asked. To give unsolicited advice in fact. I would have regarded it as my responsibility to do so.
I haven’t seen any indication that this sort of advice was proffered. I do see indications that Jim Swanson was treated almost with kid gloves.

I’m not sure that we – the ‘Ripperological’ community – are lucky that the Swanson family allow access. It is a two way street is it not.
They have gained financially once and probably will a second time for a significantly greater sum.
They also have the satisfaction of knowing that their ancestor is spoken of as an important player in the Jack the Ripper mystery (eg that missing Warren letter as well as the Marginalia information) and in the history of Scotland Yard. Without the dissemination of the material in the Swanson collection via the ‘Ripperological’ community that would not be the case.
To many people that is more valuable than money.

Cattle die, kinsmen die, you yourself will die. I know one thing that never dies. The fame of the honoured dead.

I defined the internet forum ‘attack dogs’ in an earlier post:

the role of ‘attack dog’ which in internet forum terms does not mean being a dog. It means defending their own standpoint by aggressively attacking anyone who puts forward a contrary notion to drown out their criticisms with personal abuse and misrepresentation.

You don’t fall into that category if that was the basis for your question, but there are several obvious candidates that have been active in this thread. I will leave them unnamed.

[Monty]

Woof......

.......Woof.


Monty

[Fisherman]

Fishman,
It seems possible you are deliberately inserting yourself into the discussion with the sole intention to try and discredit me.

In all honesty, the implication of what was said was that Dr Davies I think the writing analyser was too close to the principals involved. ie had a personal relationship. I except that isn't the exact phrase that was used. But it was clearly what was meant and that can be seen post after post. Anyone reading this thread can look back and see if they agree with my reading of this. Of course they will because that was what was said. I dont see a maybe there btw, it was given as a fact.

I asked immediately and continually what Ed meant and it wasn't until it got so far gone I paraphrased and used the words personal relationship he answered. Why? Because paraphrasing what was meant means I am somehow wrong and he has a great moral victory. No.

As for what I must do for a useful discussion, how dare you have the nerve to say such a thing, when you have come here with the express intention of having a go at me and adding nothing to the points (or lack thereof) raised? Setting this aside. Yes, I am trying to discuss with him the reasons he thinks there are possible holes, but its difficult when people like you come here trying to goad me and him.

If you would like to try speaking to me as though I am not a child, that would be a good place to start, that is if you don't expect a sarcastic answer. Not that you seem to recognise that was what I was clearly being in my remark about spongebob

Jenni

There is one thing and one thing only to point out here, Jenni. And that is that you claimed that Edward had said that Dr Davies was too close to the Swanson family for his verdict to be reliable.

Edward never said that. He clearly stated that there was a potential risk that Davies was too close.

Pointing to a potential risk is not making an accusation. It is not even saying that there IS a risk. It is recognizing that a risk MAY be at hand.

How you can misconstrue this to say that itīs possible (not proven, thus - just a risk - see the previous text) that Iīve inserted myself into the discussion to discredit you, is beyond me.

To begin with, it is not you as a person that is under scrutiny. It is a claim on your behalf that is demonstrably false. And since it is demonstrably false, I need not do any discrediting at all. Youīve done it yourself.

Now, I suggest that we keep anything else away from the discussion but this little - but important - detail:
You said that Edward had claimed that Davies was too close to the Swansons.
Edward said that there was a risk that this was potentially so, and he has numerous times said that he has nothing to blame the good doctor for as such.
One of the things he is not blaming Davies for is being too close to the Swansons.


Can we keep the discussion to this one detail, please? Can we refrain from conjecturing about sinister motives on my behalf for pointing this out? It does not belong to the discussion. Nor does sarcasms do so.

It is a very straightforward thing, so letīs not pretend it is not.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. I see that there is an ongoing discussion about sobering the debate up and investing more in discussing the issue at hand than in abusing each other. I welcome the intention, but I think I will have to see it before I believe in it...

[Chris]

Pointing to a potential risk is not making an accusation.

There seems to be an assumption here that it's OK to make defamatory statements about people provided they are preceded by the words "possibly" or "may have".

If anyone took this nonsense seriously enough to sue, people would be very rapidly disabused of that notion.

[Fisherman]

There seems to be an assumption here that it's OK to make defamatory statements about people provided they are preceded by the words "possibly" or "may have".

If anyone took this nonsense seriously enough to sue, people would be very rapidly disabused of that notion.

So sue. And we shall see.

Potentially, you may win

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The real problem, Chris, lies in people ascribing statements to others that have never been made. Itīs called misrepresenting, and itīs represented in this thread to a ridiculous degree.

Fisherman