Tweet
I wouldn’t characterise establishing a close relationship with members of the Swanson family and then taking photographs of Jim Swanson’s paperwork as research.
The photographs and the Ripperologist article were not put on for my benefit.
If anything they were put up and written in an endeavour to ‘prove’ the Marginalia was genuine prior to their sale – in effect they were a sales pitch.
The Ripperologist article is part of the Swanson Collection sale website.
Inconvenient images are not put up.
When engaging in research you take all evidence without a preconceived end in mind.
And before anyone says it – yes that is how I proceed.
I have put up information based on my own original research which completely (well almost completely) undermines a stance I was arguing over.
I have absolutely no problem doing that.
Should or am I really be ‘bovvered’ if the other images aren’t put up?
Not really.
I have no investment in the sale or the genuineness of the Marginalia. Financial or emotional.
At the end of the day if a private sale goes through, and if no other tests are done (what this thread was about) then very rightly doubts and question marks will remain. That won’t be my problem.
For those who may think otherwise, if I wanted to start a thread about say:
‘There’s something wrong with the Marginalia’, then I simply would have done that.
Or I may have revived a suitable thread as I try not to open new threads when possible.
I opened this thread to talk about the sale as I had heard some information that indicated movement in that regard.
Is suggesting that the Marginalia should be re-tested actually a subliminal accusation of forgery?
I don’t think so.
If the opinions of the three posters on this thread who have seen the Marginalia were so secure then why bother with the inconvenience of getting Dr Davis to authenticate it?
Does the fact that the three regard it as genuine mean that they would think that everyone else should?
Would they even make that claim themselves?
I would hope not.
Without seeing the Marginalia, detailed questioning has revealed that the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items have in effect no provenance yet were accepted without question.
Their content contains two or three items which can be regarded as suspicious.
The timing of the approach to the Telegraph and of their discovery are also grounds for suspicion.
It may well be that perfectly innocent explanations are available for all of this.
However there are more than ample grounds for suggesting that these documents should be subject to scrutiny.
But this is denied and resisted.
Without seeing the Marginalia it is quite simple to point out apparent contradictions with respect to whether or not DS Swanson was likely to have had shaky hand writing – of the sort Dr Davis observed.
There may well be perfectly innocent explanations for this.
The document that ‘proved’ DS Swanson did have shaky hand writing was accepted without question. Is it necessary to physically see that document to come to that conclusion?
Obviously not.
In the circumstances is it unreasonable to suggest that this document should be subject to scrutiny?
I would suggest it is very reasonable and indeed the sensible course of action.
But this is denied and resisted.
The bluster comes from those who stonewall these reasonable suggestions.
At the end of the day it isn’t and won’t be my problem.
Incidentally Davis made the ‘parkinsonism’ suggestion in his first report, before he had seen the 1923 letter, so before he had seen the references in that letter to hand shaking.
He made his ‘occasional’ suggestion based only on the writing in the Marginalia.
I don’t know how he came to the conclusion that the tremor was ‘occasional’.
I guess that is another minor mystery.
It is quite simple really.
We have apparent contradictions over this matter.
The simplest thing would be to subject the 1923 letter to scrutiny to clear it up.
Is that so difficult to accept?
And no I’m not going to pay for it as I am not going to financially profit from this.
The sensible course is to get the whole lot validated as part of a sale through a reputable auction house. As Stewart Evans said (I do read what he says Monty) that would also get the best price.
The photographs and the Ripperologist article were not put on for my benefit.
If anything they were put up and written in an endeavour to ‘prove’ the Marginalia was genuine prior to their sale – in effect they were a sales pitch.
The Ripperologist article is part of the Swanson Collection sale website.
Inconvenient images are not put up.
When engaging in research you take all evidence without a preconceived end in mind.
And before anyone says it – yes that is how I proceed.
I have put up information based on my own original research which completely (well almost completely) undermines a stance I was arguing over.
I have absolutely no problem doing that.
Should or am I really be ‘bovvered’ if the other images aren’t put up?
Not really.
I have no investment in the sale or the genuineness of the Marginalia. Financial or emotional.
At the end of the day if a private sale goes through, and if no other tests are done (what this thread was about) then very rightly doubts and question marks will remain. That won’t be my problem.
For those who may think otherwise, if I wanted to start a thread about say:
‘There’s something wrong with the Marginalia’, then I simply would have done that.
Or I may have revived a suitable thread as I try not to open new threads when possible.
I opened this thread to talk about the sale as I had heard some information that indicated movement in that regard.
Is suggesting that the Marginalia should be re-tested actually a subliminal accusation of forgery?
I don’t think so.
If the opinions of the three posters on this thread who have seen the Marginalia were so secure then why bother with the inconvenience of getting Dr Davis to authenticate it?
Does the fact that the three regard it as genuine mean that they would think that everyone else should?
Would they even make that claim themselves?
I would hope not.
Without seeing the Marginalia, detailed questioning has revealed that the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items have in effect no provenance yet were accepted without question.
Their content contains two or three items which can be regarded as suspicious.
The timing of the approach to the Telegraph and of their discovery are also grounds for suspicion.
It may well be that perfectly innocent explanations are available for all of this.
However there are more than ample grounds for suggesting that these documents should be subject to scrutiny.
But this is denied and resisted.
Without seeing the Marginalia it is quite simple to point out apparent contradictions with respect to whether or not DS Swanson was likely to have had shaky hand writing – of the sort Dr Davis observed.
There may well be perfectly innocent explanations for this.
The document that ‘proved’ DS Swanson did have shaky hand writing was accepted without question. Is it necessary to physically see that document to come to that conclusion?
Obviously not.
In the circumstances is it unreasonable to suggest that this document should be subject to scrutiny?
I would suggest it is very reasonable and indeed the sensible course of action.
But this is denied and resisted.
The bluster comes from those who stonewall these reasonable suggestions.
At the end of the day it isn’t and won’t be my problem.
Incidentally Davis made the ‘parkinsonism’ suggestion in his first report, before he had seen the 1923 letter, so before he had seen the references in that letter to hand shaking.
He made his ‘occasional’ suggestion based only on the writing in the Marginalia.
I don’t know how he came to the conclusion that the tremor was ‘occasional’.
I guess that is another minor mystery.
It is quite simple really.
We have apparent contradictions over this matter.
The simplest thing would be to subject the 1923 letter to scrutiny to clear it up.
Is that so difficult to accept?
And no I’m not going to pay for it as I am not going to financially profit from this.
The sensible course is to get the whole lot validated as part of a sale through a reputable auction house. As Stewart Evans said (I do read what he says Monty) that would also get the best price.
Comment