Private sale

[Lechmere]

Chris
I'm still waiting for you to make any sort of contribution beyond petty snipes.

Robert
Bertrand Russell and Mr Spock. Is there no end to your illogical insults.

[Chris]

I'm still waiting for you to make any sort of contribution beyond petty snipes.

You see, if you'd posted that from your phone, it would probably have come out as "potty snopes", or something else mildly amusing, and we could at least have had a titter (with you, of course, not at you).

As it stands, your post hasn't added much to the Sam of human hoppiness.

[Lechmere]

Pitiful

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

Cog I have read Dr Davis’ report many times.
Can you point out what I have missed and the tosh.

This seems a long time back now, and things have moved on a lot (in some ways at least) in under 24 hours...however, you had, and indeed have, conspicuously continued to imply that Davis had definitely been citing Swanson as displaying signs of Parkinsons, whilst Nevill had been claiming DSS had retained his faculties to the end, thus presumably demonstrating either Nevill's lying or Davis's incompetence.

This is a pretty specious piece of reasoning...my posting on my own difficulties in this respect, plus Ally's on hers, alone, refute this argument...others have picked you up on the inaccuracy of your wording so there is no need for me to re-emphasise this angle...yet you totally disregarded these quite honest statements, and neglected to directly answer the points others made and continue to press the same old argument, rewording and repackaging it ad infinitum....

How am I, therefore. to regard your (non-factual) arguments as anything but tosh?

"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's."

That may be what you've missed Ed - note all the prefacing qualifications..."show evidence"... "similar"... "sometimes"... "such as"...

Frankly your arguments show evidence to me of faulty reasoning which may be similar to that sometimes found in totally spurious statements derived from persons with certain pre-existing prejudices, such as suspect-blindness.

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Adam

...It seems that you only want to put documents up in order to be congratulated for proving the authenticity of the Marginalia and you take it badly if a document’s usefulness in that regard is questioned or dismissed (heaven forbid).
So be it – you have the images.

What arrogance!

Your and the others' only hope of remotely making your case is the information provided by Adam and those directly involved and you say this? You are free to speculate that Jim Swanson was a forger but Adam Wood can't offer his opinion on the research that HE conducted or correct factual errors made by you?

No matter what someone's opinion is... when he's graciously providing me information that I couldn't get elsewhere, I'd shut the pie hole up about it and be grateful for his contribution.

The world hasn't turned upside down, its turned inside out. This is frikking surreal! Phil Sugden was right about Ripperology. Why historians and dedicated researchers even bother with this field is beyond my comprehension now.

[Nemo]

I think some people may be mistaking threading a hook with fly tying, the act of making a hook resemble various insects

Fly tying does not necessarily require a steady hand and is a relaxing and rewarding hobby for fly fisherman, which I can imagine Donald Swanson pottering over in his shed

[Lechmere]

Yes Hunter I said it in reaction to his rude and arrogant attitude. Up to then I had been polite - I treat polite people politely.

[Chris]

Pitiful

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be taking yourself too seriously?

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps I should leave you - perhaps we should all leave you - to your endless Ernest discussions of the Swinson Magnolia.

[Chris]

Yes Hunter I said it in reaction to his rude and arrogant attitude. Up to then I had been polite - I treat polite people politely.

Ah now, that isn't quite true, is it?

I admit I'm not usually very polite to people I consider to be arguing dishonestly, so I have no complaint about your rudeness to me.

And I can't see that Jenni has been impolite to you, but on the other hand she has a habit of being direct and straightforward, and I can understand why that wouldn't go down well with you.

But I think Robert is one of the few people on Casebook that no one in their wildest dreams would consider impolite. And yet what do I see just above? "Is there no end to your illogical insults."

I'm afraid it's difficult to escape the conclusion that people who disagree with you are - how should we say it? - not likely to be treated very philately.

[Lechmere]

I don't regard Jenni as rude and I don't regard my responses to her as rude.
My remark to Robert was a joke that obviously passed over your head.
I am sorry if I discuss this subject too earnestly for your liking.

[Chris]

My remark to Robert was a joke that obviously passed over your head.

Now you really have me worried. What if all this time I thought you were being rude, it was just a case of unappreciated humour?

Humour is such an intangible thing, and of course it can often fail to make it intact through cyberspace.

Maybe you could try using emoticons? You know - for example, rather than just responding with the word "Pathetic" you could try "Pathetic :-)" and see if that goes down any better ...

I am sorry if I discuss this subject too earnestly for your liking.

No, I don't think you discuss it earnestly at all. That was just a joke - it must have gone over your head!

:-)

[Lechmere]

Cog
The only cause that Dr Davis mentioned with respect to the tremor was ‘a neurological condition such as parkinsonism’. I have explained many times my opinion that it is very unlikely that Dr Davis would have just randomly picked that condition out of the hat, when he could have chosen a much more mundane condition and one that had many fewer ramifications.
Therefore yours and Ally’s experiences have no bearing on the matter. Nor has me mistyping something when quickly responding on here.
That is my opinion. I think it is a rational and logical opinion.

By the way when I state my opinion I don’t tend to ‘imply’. I tend to say. End of.

Jim Swanson did claim that DS Swanson retained all his faculties to the end. True it was in the context of talking about memory. You, or anyone else, can chose to interpret that as ‘mental faculties’. I chose to interpret the word ‘all’ as meaning ‘all’. I think that is a logical and rational opinion.

Dr Davis made his ‘parkinsonism’ observation in is first report.
In his second report he accepted a letter written in 1923 as evidence that the writing he identified as showing ‘evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as parkinsonism’ was by DS Swanson.

For various reasons I think Dr Davis’ second report was flawed. I think there are indications that he missed things and I think one potential reason for this was that he had got too close to the principals involved – compared to the circumstances under which he conducted the first test.
I have gone into this in some detail already early in this thread.
I do not think this calls his professionalism into question as that sort of thing can happen sub consciously with any human being.
The two things that he missed were that he did not verify the supporting documents – the documents used to verify the Marginalia (primarily the 1923 letter). Secondly he dismissed the possibility that the Marginalia may be the result of a slightly more sophisticated forgery than can be carried out by simply tracing.

As for Jim Swanson – I suspect that many of the problems associated with the Marginalia spring from him ‘gilding the lily’. I wouldn’t go so far as accusing him of lying. By wishing to show his grandfather in a good light he over did various things – such as sticking the 1905 letter over the Fred inscription or suggesting that his grandfather had all his faculties.
He also seems to have misled Charles Nevin in 1987 when he claimed to have just found the Warren memoranda and list of victims.

I suspect that is the case anyway.
But I personally am not satisfied with the situation this has caused. I do not think the Marginalia has been properly tested.

There is a rather obvious disharmony between Dr Davis’ suggestion (and he suggested parkinsonism – not anything else) and Jim Swanson’s reminiscences which also include his father threading flies (which is a fiddly job) and actually fly fishing in Scotland. This is not specious reasoning – it is logical reasoning.

One explanation could be that the shaky handwriting wasn’t by DS Swanson.

What you have to understand is that this isn’t about proving whether or not DS Swanson had parkinsonism or whether his hands were as solid as a rock.
It isn’t even about proving that the Marginalia is a forgery.

It is about suggesting that there is sufficient grounds for doubting that the Marginalia has been conclusively proved to be genuine.
That there are valid doubts and unanswered questions.
And this being the case that it should be re-tested.

It is suggested that the re-testing would ideally be carried out by a reputable auction house.
I would hope that they would put the 1923 letter under scrutiny, re-evaluate the handwriting and lastly scrutinise the Scotland Yard Crime Museum material, as this is also an important element in the validation of the Marginalia.

The Scotland Yard Crime Museum material is obviously not owned by the Swanson family whereas the other items are and that might cause problems. I would suggest that it is very much in the Swanson family’s interest to have the items properly and conclusively validated.
I have said that I personally (for what it’s worth) would accept any validation from a reputable auction house and I believe other sceptics would too, so the tired argument that other objections would be raised holds no water.

In my opinion it is a no brainer that this should be done.
To others this is an impertinent suggestion – or is seen as a threat perhaps.
Without a definitive test I strongly suspect that doubts will remain - and that would be the deserved outcome.

I’ve only recapitulated all this as it is becoming obvious that this thread – like all discussions about the Marginalia – is becoming mired in increasing levels of recrimination and no purposeful discussion is likely to come out of continuing it any further and there are better things to discuss.

[Jenni Shelden]

Yes Hunter I said it in reaction to his rude and arrogant attitude. Up to then I had been polite - I treat polite people politely.

Someone may have said this but I'm pretty sure the image u mention reletter of 1923 is reproduced in the rip article ,a link to which is already on the thread .

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure what you mean there - I know the 1923 letter is in the article - and now on this thread.
The other letter 'of interest' is a letter from Jim Swanson to Charles Nevin dated 9th October 1987. Oh and there's the 1918 letter that was very briefly put up on the other forum.

Watch it Jenni, you made a few errors in that post.

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry thought you were asking for the letter Adam part reproduced in full .Which I think is in the article.
Just trying to help as you seemed keen.
PS you should see my texts lol