Private sale

[Monty]

and to add to this...

How some people will do whatever they can to promote something, and to make it look as "great" as possible, WITHOUT forging. Proud, no doubt of his grandfather that Jim Swanson was... a basic human reaction. Not hard to understand either, if one has to look at things logically. Beyond some though, it seems.

Not sure where the pasting of a wrongly dated letter and red line addition helps there though. Especially after 1987.....and after 2000......

Do I here someone at the back shouting... "defacing.."? Not exactly helping the cause at the end of the day, was it? Especially under advisement...



Phil

What was specifically advised?

Monty

[Rubyretro]

I think some really need to get themselves an understanding of the period and how ex Police officers and their families collate information on past cases and glories.

Monty

Dear Monty -are you trying to say that policemen are any different from other people who might have strong tribal leanings ? We can all be divided, and subdivided, into tribes.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

You stated earlier on that you didnt want to go back in the thread and read. Adam wrote of it earlier.


I am off to eat dinner. Enjoy the read.


Phil

[Monty]

You can't answer either huh Phil?

Private document.

Clue is in the title.


Monty

[Monty]

Dear Monty -are you trying to say that policemen are any different from other people who might have strong tribal leanings ? We can all be divided, and subdivided, into tribes.

No Ruby,

I am not.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Let me see. A basically unimportant letter from 1905 is pasted in a book from 1910 between 1987 and 2000.

And this is seen as sinister? Jesus the word desperation comes to mind.

Rob

[Steve S]

Let me see. A basically unimportant letter from 1905 is pasted in a book from 1910 between 1987 and 2000.

And this is seen as sinister? Jesus the word desperation comes to mind.

Rob

Sadly,it now seems EVERYTHING has a sinister motive..................

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael:

Yes, the burden lies with me. But as I've come to realize, because I'm intelligent, that I may be delusional and that the things I thought I believed are absolutely ridiculous, I'm walking away from this moment of stupidity that hovered over me.

Fine. Good call, I believe - you didn´t have much on that guy anyway.

Unfortunately for all, these moments of stupidity become years of obsessions on this site, and reduce Ripperology to a study of the absurd. That is as important as the case gets these days...it is a sociological experiment that involves absurdity becoming, through dogged determination and loud noise, a sort of mainstreaming of nonsense. When it's loud and long enough, others jump on the bandwagon. The people who guard the boundaries between sanity and nuttiness get labeled the cabal. And then the absurdity reaches a level of parity...which makes it all even more absurd. I'm not going to let my Nipponese neighbor fall into that quagmire.

One should safeguard whatever Nipponese neighbours one has, agreed! But from my vantage point, I think the loudest screaming has come from the Don´t-touch-my-buddy group so far. And just as I recognize you as a clever, logical and useful thinker, I count Edward to that same category of people. Very much so, in fact.
Therefore, I have a little problem with him asking for a more full and thorough investigation of the marginalia. Or simply an investigation by another document specialist - not to discard Dr Davies for lacking qualifications, but for the sake of leaving no stone unturned.
I have a lot more problems with the rather shrill defence of the view that the marginalia is beyond criticism. It does not spell reliability when a question that is asked in a very controlled manner is met by so much hostility. It does very little for the credibility of the hostile part of the discussion. That´s not to say that they are necessarily wrong - only to point out that one can be right gracefully too.

As for Ripperology sinking in a bog of ignorance and all that rather ridiculous stuff (just my take, of course ...), I´d say that ignorance and geniality always has and always will line the paths of any research. And all the while, some of us will mistake one for the other.

All the best, Mike!
Fisherman

[AdamNeilWood]

So, at some time between 1987 (Martin Fido and others) and 2000 (Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner) the said piece of paper had been pasted into the book.

These are simple questions.

1. Why do it anyway?
2. For what possible purpose?
3. For what gain?

Who knows why Jim pasted it in - we can guess. But you ask excellent questions, which others would do well to consider before seeing the pasting in of a letter in a book as suspicious.

I will not assume, but I will say, that seemingly, and I put that word tentatively, it was for the purpose of promoting the date itself.. because the contents of the letter mean nothing, at least nothing in relation to the authenticity of the book or the marginalia itself..but consider the comments made by Jim Swanson previously when talking to the press of the time of the writing in said book, and his mentioning of dates.....

As I've already explained to Ruby, the date of the book appears on a different page to that onto which the letter is pasted, so if Jim was trying to conceal a date he didn't try very hard.

Trouble is, and I have to ask questions 4 and 5...not quite so simple to answer, perhaps.

4. Did anyone advise Jim Swanson to paste it in there?
5. Why do I see a comparison with the red line annotations here?

No, nobody advised Jim to paste a letter in the book. Or draw red felt pen lines on page 138. Or even to write to the News of the World in the first place.

There seems to be a problem with the Swanson family having 'advisors'. Does anybody seriously think that Nevill Swanson, and Jim before him, seek the council of certain people before making a single decision? Anybody who has actually met either of the two will know the answer to that.

In hindsight, if Jim had asked Paul, Stewart, Martin or Keith I'm certain they would have advised him not to draw those lines or paste in the 1905 letter. But nobody was emailing Jim, or calling him, on a regular basis.

My own personal feeling is that Jim valued what his grandfather wrote in the marginalia more than the book in which it was written.

To me, that's why he offered the News of the World (and later the Telegraph) the information in those annotations, and not the physical book itself.

Adam

[Rubyretro]

Jenni -I fully expected a list of 'shaky' illnessess.

I shall work through them diligently.

If the shakiness was genetic, then we'd expect another Swanson -including current ones- to have it. No mention of it -and that would be some support for the Marginalia.

Hyperthyroidism shows a goitre (swollen neck) and poppy out eyes -can't see that in the photos.

[Lechmere]

Rob
Your Sphinx-like refusal to expand upon your vague claims that the state of 1970s and 80s Ripperology somehow of itself authenticates the Marginalia (at least I am presuming that was you were hinting at) is hardly fair on the valiant ranks of Pro-Marginalia Platoon (of whom the Marginalists are just one fraction).
As a ranker in the Pro-Marginalia Platoon myself, if a misunderstood one, I find your silence – withdrawing to your tent like a later day Achilles – inexplicable.
Please share with us!

Yours
The Brigadier.

Observer

‘you have no faith in the marginalia's authenticity have you?’

My interest in the Marginalia was spawned by the unrealistic glee that spread across the ‘Ripperological’ community at the claim that the Marginalia was certainly genuine. When it was clear that there were still gaping holes.
I see in the ‘Ripperological’ community a yearning for new sources. This is perhaps understandable because the extant sources are so paltry. There is a hope in some quarters that a hitherto missing piece of the jigsaw will solve the case. In others there is the more modest perennial hope for a new find that will at least expand our knowledge of the case.
This has led in my opinion to the too rapid acceptance of the Marginalia as genuine. The closure of eyes to disturbing realities and a less than rigorous treatment of the various pieces of evidence.
I think this desperation for new sources leads to new finds being snatched at. It also leads to attempts to shout down the sirens, the sceptics and the pernickety.
It leads to repeated and wholly unnecessary calls to ‘name-names’. That are sometimes met face on.
This leads to unpleasantness and angry exchanges (that we can all get dragged into from time to time) that are of no assistance in determining the truth.

Because I saw this, and probably because I am a bit of a contrary individual, and because I saw that there were a range of unresolved issues, I decided to point them out.

It doesn’t mean that I have a prior position that the Marginalia is probably fake.
At an earlier stage in this multi-dimensional cross-forum debate I thought it was more likely to be a fake than not.
As things stand I think it is slightly more likely to be authentic than not. The game changer was the Express letter which first appeared on this thread.
That probably makes me a member of the Pro Marginalia Platoon!

It is in the interests of those who believe the Marginalia to be genuine that all question marks over it are answered honestly and with no recourse to rancour. Otherwise the stink will remain. Or at least a sufficient number of those question marks as it is exceptionally unlikely that every little issue will be ironed out.
It is in the interests of the three (I believe that is Lynn’s current tally) Kosminskites to have the Marginalia re-tested so that there can be no doubt about it.
It is in the interests of the wider ‘Ripperological’ community for the Collection to be tested as it shows due diligence and will be an example if a new find does come to light. They should be eager for a re-test, presuming they are confident it will pass, as it will help their cause.
It is in the interests of the Swanson family to do likewise to get the best price and gain complete exoneration.

All I have suggested is that the Marginalia and supporting documents are put under professional scrutiny and I have tried to illustrate why.
It does not mean that I do not accept the possibility of alternative innocent explanations for various of the questionable things I have highlighted. If the Marginalia proves to be genuine then those innocent alternative explanations gain justification. If it doesn’t the guilty interpretations gain force. That is just the way it is.

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni -I fully expected a list of 'shaky' illnessess.

I shall work through them diligently.

If the shakiness was genetic, then we'd expect another Swanson -including current ones- to have it. No mention of it -and that would be some support for the Marginalia.

Hyperthyroidism shows a goitre (swollen neck) and poppy out eyes -can't see that in the photos.

Except Ruby,


Except, that the conversation went like this, just to refresh our memories so we are clear what the point being made is, before you waste your time diverting things further:-
(continuing the discussion...)
Post 696 Lechmere -

If someone is in complete command of all his faculties then it very strongly suggests that they have not got such bad shaking of the hands that it is noticeable in their writing and that they have to explain themselves twice in a letter to a grandson. That grandson being the brother of the person who thought their grandfather was in "complete command of all his faculties."

Post 729 Ally [in response to Lechmere]

Complete and utter bullshit. I am one hundred percent in command of my mental faculties, and due to a reason I don't feel pressed to go into, I often, though not always have shakiness in my right hand that affects not only my writing, but my ability to hold objects. So you are absolutely one hundred percent wrong. I have often been out to dinner and felt the need to explain why I am having to grasp a fork like a two year old in my fist, or keep dropping or having to use my left hand to guide food onto it - because you feel like an imbecile for not being able to grasp and use something correctly, but that does not mean your faculties are in fact impaired.

Post 736 [in response to Robert's question, what else do you think was added] Rubyretro

Anything in shaky writing for starters. I don't believe that there is any evidence that DSS had a hand tremor. The photos don't suggest it, his hobby of tying fish flies doesn't suggest it, his obituary doesn't suggest it, and there is no mention that he had Parkinsonism. He wasn't that old when he died (about 76 ? -from memory), and I think that he died of a heart attack brought on by hardening of the arteries.

post 741 [in response to Ruby] Ally

You know Ruby as you present yourself as someone with integrity, you really need to stop making wild ass assumptions based on no evidence. Like the fact that an 80 year old can't write email. How precisely would a photo show he had a hand tremor ?? What makes you think a hand tremor presents itself at all times and in all activities? What makes you think that an ability to tie fly fishing lines prevents you from having a tremor?? I have a hand tremor. I can still tie string and even sometimes thread a needle. It depends on how much exertion I have done that day prior to the event. You are just making stuff up that has no basis in foundation. Not all hand tremors are constant. Some only appear after specific exertion like trying to write with a pen, hold a fork, or "grasp" objects and use them. Some days I can eat with chopsticks, some days I can't eat with a fork. I am pretty sure my obituary is not going to claim "hand tremor" since a hand tremor is unlikely to kill me. Nor do I have Parkinsons. I have nerve damage in my hand that worsens when I exert it unduly. Is that really worth an obituary mention? What precisely makes you think there is no other cause for hand tremors beside Parkinsons??

There are a hundred different reasons one can have a hand tremor.

Post 756 Ruby [in response to Ally saying There are a hundred different reasons one can have a hand tremor.] Ruby

Ok Ally -do a list.

post 771 Jenni [in response to Ruby ok Ally do a list]

Maybe Ally's busy, but I can help,
and I am in no way making a diagnosis of anyone, but I think your retort a little off so,

here's a little bit of a list to start:-
genetics
Parkinsons
overactive thyroid
kidney disease
liver disease
caffiene
drug misuse
alcoholism
alcohol withdrawal
MS
stimulants
brain tumor
bran lesion
Stroke
damage to the nervous system..

I'll let Ally finish the list
Jenni

Post 773 Ally [in response to Ruby I don't -but that's what the Expert said -something like Parkinsonians. I also think that I would just go away from the writing, rest, and come back without comment if I had a transient problem with writing. The shaky writing is something else, isn't it ?]

The expert was not a medical expert. He was a handwriting analyst who said that the handwriting showed shakiness, possibly to something LIKE parkinsons. Do you really think shaky handwriting is sufficient to diagnose Parkinson's. Get real! Davies was in no way claiming that Swanson had parkinson's. He was stating he had evidence of a tremor and gave a possibility. Do you really think Davies was attempting to make an ACTUAL medical diagnosis?

Post 775 Ally [in response to do a list (sic) and continuing from my list started in post 771]

And I would like to point people to the definition of Kinetic Tremor. Read it, and realize that fly fishing is not an impossibility, nor is it likely that it would show up in a photo.

I am getting ready to go off to lunch so I'll have to do this in stages, bear with me:

Basic fatigue
side effects from medications
Muscle fatigue
Muscle damage
Wilson's disease
Psuedotumor cerebri
Chiari-Malformation
Low blood pressure
low blood sugar
Mercury poisoning
Vitamin deficiency


And here's one everyone should have heard of:

BASIC WRITER'S CRAMP!

I'll be back later and finish it off.

Post 790 Ruby

Jenni -I fully expected a list of 'shaky' illnessess.

I shall work through them diligently.

If the shakiness was genetic, then we'd expect another Swanson -including current ones- to have it. No mention of it -and that would be some support for the Marginalia.

Hyperthyroidism shows a goitre (swollen neck) and poppy out eyes -can't see that in the photos.

As you can see Ruby, no one is asking you to work through this list and see if you think that DSS had any of these illnesses, I don't know if you are a doctor, or any form of medical expert, I assume not, but maybe you are. Even if you are, I think you would be hard pressed to make a diagnosis based on what we currently know.


No we aren't saying that DSS suffered from any of the illnesses we are listing, we are saying that his shaky hand was not necessarily a sign of Parkinsons or if it can be taken as a sign that he was lacking cognitive abilities when writing the marginalia.

In fact, in starting a list, I was merely responding to your answer to Ally, to make a list of the numerous illnesses/events that could lead to a tremor.

If you didn't want a list, which no one said was going to be conclusive or contain every single illness/event possible, then, don't ask,

I assume you were asking to be enlightened and not for any other reason
Kind regards
Jenni

[Ally]

If the shakiness was genetic, then we'd expect another Swanson -including current ones- to have it. No mention of it -and that would be some support for the Marginalia.

You are confusing genetic with hereditary. They are not the same thing.

Hyperthyroidism shows a goitre (swollen neck) and poppy out eyes -can't see that in the photos.

If you are going to go through and try to rule out conditions based on the photo, I can't wait until you try to rule out low blood sugar or low blood pressure. Or endocrine system or nerve damage.

LMAO.

[Rob Clack]

Rob
Your Sphinx-like refusal to expand upon your vague claims that the state of 1970s and 80s Ripperology somehow of itself authenticates the Marginalia (at least I am presuming that was you were hinting at) is hardly fair on the valiant ranks of Pro-Marginalia Platoon (of whom the Marginalists are just one fraction).
As a ranker in the Pro-Marginalia Platoon myself, if a misunderstood one, I find your silence – withdrawing to your tent like a later day Achilles – inexplicable.
Please share with us!

Yours
The Brigadier.

Yes I'm such a tease.

Not exactly vague, I did tell you where to look. Anyway, I wont go into detail as it will probably be a waste of time.
Don Rumbelow put forward the theory that Anderson in his book was actually referring to John Pizer and not Kosminski. And this was pretty much excepted up until Paul Begg's The Uncensored Facts published in 1988.

So what I am saying is that if the suspects name was added between 1981 and 1987 then it would most likely have been 'Pizer was the suspect.'

Rob

[Jenni Shelden]

nothing to see