Private sale

[Lechmere]

Rob
But that wouldn't have been original and so of no real interest.
It's hardly a clincher one way or the other.

[Jenni Shelden]

Ah, the rankers...

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ruby (Lesley)

FWIW I am 60 years old and during the last two or three years have developed very shaky (at times at least) handwriting...I don't actually know what causes it, but it's converted an extremely tidy italic hand (often used to draw up extremely detailed graphical drawings) into what can only be described as (mostly) an illiterate scrawl. [Perhaps I ought to get it checked out but I'm (a) a bit of a coward and (b) I don't like to misuse the NHS if I can do without - it doesn't really bother me and computerisation has helped with what might otherwise be a burden.]

I have certainly not got any form of visible tremor (except when exceptionally tired) and can still perform detailed practical (eg DIY) work with my hands. I am fully in control of my faculties (well as much as I ever have been!) and am easily holding down a responsible and often stressful job...It's just that my handwriting's, more often than not, shot to pieces...so, unsurprisingly, I don't think you can logically draw any conclusions regarding Swanson's mental or cognitive powers from his shaky handwriting!

With regard to the likelihood or otherwise of an 80 - 88 year old communicating effectively by email, I keep in touch with my late mother's family by this means...my youngest surviving uncle is 72 and my oldest surviving aunt just the right side of 90 (It was a big family - 11 siblings surviving into adulthood)...none of them seem to have the slightest problem with email...the one that did (my own mother) was the one that had the most difficulties with basic literacy...I don't think you have any rationale for this assumption whatever!

All the best

Dave

[Chris]

Ah, the rancour...

[Lechmere]

I think we are in a position now to state certainly that the Anderson letter was not pasted over the Fred inscription in 1987.
Jim Swanson must have pasted it there between 1987 and 2000.
We can speculate why he did this. Gilding the lily again perhaps? An honest over enthusiastic error maybe?

But this isn’t really the point.

The unused 1981 article found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum contained this passage:
‘The book is called “The Lighter Side of My Official Life” and was published in 1905. As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book.’

In 1981 Fred’s name was clearly inscribed in the front of the book. So why on earth would Charles Sandell quote Jim Swanson as saying that Sir Robert Anderson had signed it and the book was published in 1905? The only reason anyone might mistakenly think the book as published in 1905 was if the Anderson letter was pasted over Fred’s signature. But let me remind you that was not done until after 1987 and the Memo was supposedly written in 1981.

For the Scotland Yard Crime Museum to be genuine, both Charles Sandell (who had access to the book) and Jim Swanson got somewhat confused. Or perhaps the letter was glued in place in 1981, came loose in 1987 and was glued back before 2000.

[Cogidubnus]

Ah, the rancour...

No rancour on my part Chris...unless what causes my shaky hand is "rancours doom"

All the best

Dave

[Rob Clack]

Rob
But that wouldn't have been original and so of no real interest.
It's hardly a clincher one way or the other.

Did it have to be original or just factual sounding?

Still in 800 posts or so there is still nothing to doubt the marginallia anything other than genuine.

Rob

[Chris]

For the Scotland Yard Crime Museum to be genuine, ...

Blimey. I didn't realise it was being suggested that the Crime Museum itself was a fake!

[Chris]

No rancour on my part Chris...unless what causes my shaky hand is "rancours doom"

Sorry - should have made it clear I was responding to Jenni...

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry - should have made it clear I was responding to Jenni...

Rankers only here Chris, if you aren't a ranker you are in the wrong place...

[Cogidubnus]

It's ok Chris...I'd guessed that!

all the best

Dave

[robhouse]

Did it have to be original or just factual sounding?

Still in 800 posts or so there is still nothing to doubt the marginallia anything other than genuine.

Rob

800 posts? More like 8,000 posts by my count.

Oh you mean in this thread?

RH

[Jenni Shelden]

I think we are in a position now to state certainly that the Anderson letter was not pasted over the Fred inscription in 1987.
Jim Swanson must have pasted it there between 1987 and 2000.
We can speculate why he did this. Gilding the lily again perhaps? An honest over enthusiastic error maybe?

But this isn’t really the point.

The unused 1981 article found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum contained this passage:
‘The book is called “The Lighter Side of My Official Life” and was published in 1905. As my grandfather worked under Sir Robert and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy of the book.’

In 1981 Fred’s name was clearly inscribed in the front of the book. So why on earth would Charles Sandell quote Jim Swanson as saying that Sir Robert Anderson had signed it and the book was published in 1905? The only reason anyone might mistakenly think the book as published in 1905 was if the Anderson letter was pasted over Fred’s signature. But let me remind you that was not done until after 1987 and the Memo was supposedly written in 1981.

For the Scotland Yard Crime Museum to be genuine, both Charles Sandell (who had access to the book) and Jim Swanson got somewhat confused. Or perhaps the letter was glued in place in 1981, came loose in 1987 and was glued back before 2000.

I don't know, why ?

[Rob Clack]

800 posts? More like 8,000 posts by my count.

Oh you mean in this thread?

RH

It does seem like 8000 doesn't it? And I would think over half the posts are just repetitions of other posts.

Rob

[Jenni Shelden]

This thread is 81 pages, im sure last night it was only about 65!