Private sale

[Monty]

That what you and others would like keep out those who seek to challenge the old outdated theories which you and others are so ready to accept as being correct. Challenges which now clearly dispel many of those old outdated theories you and the others support, and that what really bugs you so you resort to name calling etc etc and continuous weak attempts at discrediting. Because each time you post you cant help resorting to the same old comments do us all a favor and change the record

You as do others in your clique clearly have no ability or perception as to what is evidence what are facts and how to assess and evaluate both.

Next time anyone from the cartel wants to play Sherlock Holmes perhaps they should seek professional advice first. Because they screwed up big time with the marginalia as we can now see.

As opposed to fabricated or altered evidence you mean?

Yeah.....you know.

Monty

[Ally]

As opposed to fabricated or altered evidence you mean?

Yeah.....you know.

Monty

Yes Montster, dontcha know? "Professional advice" is: when the evidence you have isn't the evidence you want, lie.

I am surprised a researcher of your calibre wasn't aware. Sticking to the facts, pshaw! So last decade.

[Monty]

Its the modern way Ally,

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Was the NOTW told the name of JTR in 1981 and couldn't be bothered to print it?

Hello Stephen,

No.. because it was only the long awaited, much talked about name of the most horrific and famous "serial killer" in modern history.

Now why on Earth would The News of the World want to print that?

After all, it wasn't as if The News of the World in the 70's and 80's delved into every sort of name-dropping, sordid, murderous person they could lay their hands on every Sunday was it?

And Jack the Ripper's name would never help sell a single newspaper either.. so why print it... even if they actually had it?

(irony rules, ok?)

Your point Stephen, has not been lost on some of us, even though it has been said a thousand times before.

NO newspaper from the trash gutter of London tabloid journalism at the time would have missed the opportunity for this scoop. None.


Without a name though... they might just well have left it be......

"Thanks but no thanks."



Hope you are well my friend.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Stephen,

No.. because it was only the long awaited, much talked about name of the most horrific and famous "serial killer" in modern history.

Now why on Earth would The News of the World want to print that?

After all, it wasn't as if The News of the World in the 70's and 80's delved into every sort of name-dropping, sordid, murderous person they could lay their hands on every Sunday was it?

And Jack the Ripper's name would never help sell a single newspaper either.. so why print it... even if they actually had it?

(irony rules, ok?)

Your point Stephen, has not been lost on some of us, even though it has been said a thousand times before.

NO newspaper from the trash gutter of London tabloid journalism at the time would have missed the opportunity for this scoop. None.


Without a name though... they might just well have left it be......

"Thanks but no thanks."



Hope you are well my friend.


Phil

And now the cavalry arrives greetings Phil.

Hope you have your tin hat at the ready

[Jenni Shelden]

And now the cavalry arrives greetings Phil.

Hope you have your tin hat at the ready

You mean like a cabal Trevor?

Its certainly possible i suppose

[Jenni Shelden]

Hello Stephen,

No.. because it was only the long awaited, much talked about name of the most horrific and famous "serial killer" in modern history.

Now why on Earth would The News of the World want to print that?

After all, it wasn't as if The News of the World in the 70's and 80's delved into every sort of name-dropping, sordid, murderous person they could lay their hands on every Sunday was it?

And Jack the Ripper's name would never help sell a single newspaper either.. so why print it... even if they actually had it?

(irony rules, ok?)

Your point Stephen, has not been lost on some of us, even though it has been said a thousand times before.

NO newspaper from the trash gutter of London tabloid journalism at the time would have missed the opportunity for this scoop. None.


Without a name though... they might just well have left it be......

"Thanks but no thanks."



Hope you are well my friend.


Phil

Hi Phil,

Nice to see you back posting, hope this means that you are well.

Re NoW you say they wouldnt have passed it up and yet all the evidence points to the fact that they did. Or do you think all the evidence is fabricated ?

Jenni

[Trevor Marriott]

You mean like a cabal Trevor?

Its certainly possible i suppose

Yes but with brains !

[Ally]

You mean like a cabal Trevor?

Its certainly possible i suppose

No Jenni Trevor's comment about the Calvary arriving means he realized he was on the verge of being slaughtered and is desperately hoping Phil is here to save him.

[Monty]

Custer springs to mind.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Custer springs to mind.

Monty

Simon Wood is on his way so then we will have an impenetrable circle

[Ally]

Yeah you know, I visited Custer's battleground a few years back and as you looked out over the terrain and realized the lay of the land, the retreat points, the size of the oncoming force and the sheer, unbelievably bad tactics involved, all you could do was stand there, shake you head and think:

"What a frakking dumbass."

[Ally]

Simon Wood is on his way so then we will have an impenetrable circle

Nobody wants that kind of glimpse into your private life Trevor. Nobody.

[Robert]

Custer went to the wrong place. He meant to go to Big Littlehorn. Easy enough mistake to make.

[Phil Carter]

NOTW etc

Hi Phil,

Nice to see you back posting, hope this means that you are well.

Re NoW you say they wouldnt have passed it up and yet all the evidence points to the fact that they did. Or do you think all the evidence is fabricated ?

Jenni

Hello Jenni,

Thank you for the polite welcome and your kind thoughts. My health is good, thank you, but I may have to disappoint you (and some others with another agenda, it seems) and say that it is a fleeting visit only, today. I have been extremely busy at work on an important project recently and it is taking up a great deal of time I'm afraid. Again, thank you for asking. Appreciated.

I don't think the evidence fabrication point you make is totally answerable, actually. There are indications that both in it's content and in it's written methodlogy that simply raise questions. The contents themselves (of the marginalia) are very poor, factually. If you had written "some"..then I can see that could be the case, yes..in terms of the NOTW....in terms of the complete lack of logic that the News of The World didnt print a world wide smash scoop. So that idicates to me that the name simply wasn't there in 1981.
So...All? No. I will not be going into details yet again because it has been stated before both in Stephen's post and in my own.

Ally started a thread entitled "There's something wrong with the marginalia" I believe. I agree. There IS something wrong with it. And Stephen's point about the News of the World NOT taking up the offer to name Jack the Ripper in 1981 is quite unbelievable (in the correct sense, please note) imo. There is something wrong in the logic pertaining to that, too.

Who did what and when, how and why is something that IF there is any sort of "wool over the eyes" involved, only a few will know. I find it unlikely that in the case of that scenario, anyone will come clean, as it were. There may be egos and reputations involved...who knows? But as I have stated on many occasions. The period of time involved here is one where a great many "cons" and "laughs" to deliberately and knowingly fool were used, in different areas of the subject "Jack the Ripper". On that basis alone, this consideration must be entertained, whether provable or not. Whether we like it or not.

I am not going to get into personal slanging matches either. I find that attitude repulsive and pathetic. Name calling is of the same ilk, imo. Those who do it delberately want to antagonise it seems. They will be wasting their time with me. I will not answer in kind either.

That is why I have answered you post in this manner. I am trying to stick to the subject as much as I can.

Stewart Evans wrote in an earlier thread that the best answer was an auction sale through a reputable auction house, letting reputable experts take on the problem of authenticity surrounding the marginalia. This means NEUTRAL and INDEPENDANT experts on a level which, I believe, would be beneficial to the whole cause.

What I would like to know though, is this...

Should that method of sale be chosen... what is going to happen if said experts come to an opposite conclusion than before..a "Met Police" expert?

Trevor Marriott is correct in his statement that the living decendants of Jim Swanson would be left to carry the can. I find that terrible. Because, as Trevor said... this could have been avoided many many years ago. The first alarm bells I saw was that an expert decided to make a conclusion based upon a poor photo copy.

That SHOULD have told the family, quite simply, that the very substance of the original conclusion was based on a very wrong way of doing things in the first place.

Yes, there is something wrong with the Marginalia... and much of it stems from the original time period of presentation and it's content. Supporters of the authenticity of the Marginalia have used just about every counter argument going to support it..in answer to massive criticism in parts. That defence, on some points which I will not go into individually, and the veracity of such defence, has been an eye opener for me, personally.




Phil