Private sale

[Ally]

Thatīs why I donīt think that any handwriting of his would evince signs of such a disease. But still, Dr Davies said that handwriting by Swanson displayed treats that were there in "certain" neurological conditions, such as PD.

And this is yet another point that you completely blew by in your attempt to drown out facts: the one calling card (as you yourself put up repeatedly) of Parkinson's is Micrographia. Which is not displayed in the suspect line.

Ergo, Davis wasn't saying he HAD parkinson's. Ergo:

Therefore, Swanson would not be a fly tier

.

Not an accurate statement.

And if he WAS a fly tier, then he did not have a more or less severe hand tremor.

Or he had a severe hand tremor that only presented itself after exertion. Like after he'd spent all day tying ties.

The only explanation I can find to this problem is that he had a steady hand when it came to tying flies and a shaky one when it came to writing letters.

Itīs called selectiveness. Is there an emoticon for that?

Selective argument on the part of people who refuse to concede Davis wasn't saying he had Parkinson's. Yes.

[Ally]

Actually you treat useful people politely. So I'm rude for not posting an image as and when you demand it? Oh well (the arrogance!)

Might have nudged Mark Ripper out of the #1 spot with that line.

[Ally]

Unlike us, they are fortunate enough to have access to such material (like the Aberconway Version too) because they go about things in the right way, gain trust and do not put the owners of such material's noses out of joint by making insinuations of foul play or negligence. I am sure if they found evidence of such, they would comment.

JB

And John Bennett is coming up close second. Mark is now a distant, distant third. Best get cracking Mark! (Nah kidding, Mark owns it for all time).

[Ally]

The fact that you openly admitted to lying earlier in this thread leads me to ask, how do I know you aren't now?

Hmm may have to change the title to "person" instead of "man".

[Lechmere]

We are all subject to our preconceptions, we all have prejudices, we all sub consciously do things (even D r Davis no doubt).
Most people also take themselves more seriously than other people tend to take them.
It is possible to be personally rude about anyone and it is possible to question anyone's motivation.

I would prefer to stick to the subject at hand and not indulge in personal based accusations. But it is a two way street.

[Robert]

A bit more about fly fishing :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87GkwSZdZLs

[Ally]

Hey Adam,

Can you do me a favor and send me a PDF of that letter that Lechmere wants so badly? I don't plan to do anything with it but, I just want to crow on the boards that I have it and he doesn't and point out the benefits of asking nicely.

So please? Since I recognize you would be doing me a huge favor and are under absolutely no imperative to accede to my demands or even polite requests, and I actually recognize it's a favor and not an obligation you have, seeing as how, you know, private property is yours to do with as you choose.

[Monty]

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.

To steal a line from Trevor,

Clearly it is a problem for you Ed.

The bottom line is the provenance is excellent, it stands to scientific scrutiny and holds its own in terms of content.

The peripherals, from fly fishing to parkinsonism, and finishing with allusions of letter forging are mere desperate attempts to draw this document into question simply because the marginalia, on its own, stands up to valid reason.

I shall be seeing Keith tomorrow, I'll pass on your regards over tea and bourbons.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Sale and other things

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.

Hello Adam,

Thank you for the kind words. As I said I really am trying to see some light from both sides here.

However, my personal thoughts about this are of the natural human nature variety. I STRESS that.. because if I don't I'll be accused of insulting someone. I only see A NATURAL HUMAN RESPONSE in what has occured.

I believe Jim Swanson was immensely proud of his grandfather.
I believe that he, perhaps without realising it, painted and continued to paint a rosier picture of his grandfather and the circs we have been described re the past.
I believe in doing so, at various points along the way, he made human errors of judgement.
I believe that fillial family pride causes embellishment of stories, by more than one.
I believe that Jim Swanson intended to try to make money from his grandfather's book.
I believe that the present family are doing the same.
I believe that in order to do so, both Jim and the present family members were, and are, milking the cow for what it is worth.
I believe that they are using every link and contact within their knowledge to do so. Even promotion. Through magazines and even public appearances and meetings.
I believe that certain things that have been done in the course of the last 32 years or so have caused the mess that has been seen by all.

I cannot, and this is MY bottom line, see a gutter press newspaper like the News of the World, as it was in the 1970's and 1980's, simply turning down the chance to trump everyone with a World Wide Smash Scoop..the CERTAIN name of Jack the Ripper, given the type of newspaper they were, the zealousness of all things Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) and the fact that the fascination for JTR was highly prominent at the time. It just would not happen. It is as simple as that. They cannot have been sure of the evidence. And that tells me... the name game is wrong.

I cannot ignore, either, that this was the time of Ripperological cons, and fooling all and sundry. This must be kept in consideration whilst examining the background. Whether one believes the Marginalia to be genuine or not. It has to be kept in mind. People were outdoing each other (and some still try it...) in trying to "have a laugh at someone's expense", "fool the community" "fool the general public" "make money out of old rope" if at all possible.

Ok Im a sceptic. But that's where this lies, for me.

If Jim Swanson took his zealousness to the extreme.. then he did. If he didn't, he didnt. But one thing is for certain.

This blasted book is trying to be flogged for all it is worth.

That is blatant and clear.

That's why it HAS to be sold via a reputable auction house, a reputable, neutral and unknown (to this community at least) document examiner who's name must not be known until after the said examination, for fear of accusations of "bias" if known to anyone within the community.

This sale has to be so above board that it floats in the air.

Anything less will damage the reputation of the item, the seller and the community for a very long time indeed.

So if Mr Nevil Swanson WANTS to sell this book, which we are told he does, the best thing would be for it to be done through an established and well known auctioneers. If the amount I have heard is anything like the true auction value...then the more watertight the process, the better it will be...for everyone.

Otherwise Mr Swanson and family are going to be left with a millstone hanging around their necks. Which of course might happen anyway if the document examiner believes the item cannot be fully authenticated.

My personal belief is that the sale at auction will not reach anything like that price. For Mr. Swanson and family's sake, I hope I am wrong.


Phil

[Lechmere]

And I agree with virtually all of that Phil

[Chris]

That's why it HAS to be sold via a reputable auction house

You can post the word 'has' in underlined bold purple italics if you like (though maybe I shouldn't put ideas into your head!), but you know as well as I do that the family can do whatever it likes with the book.

[Phil Carter]

You can post the word 'has' in underlined bold purple italics if you like (though maybe I shouldn't put ideas into your head!), but you know as well as I do that the family can do whatever it likes with the book.

Hello Chris,

This opinion is the same as Stewart Evans, on the best place of sale. Go tell Stewart too, if you are going to point things out to people. But....

Yup, the family can do what they like.

But whatever they like also means that they get whatever fallback that follows. INCLUDING family reputation. So doing it water tight Chis.. upholds a family honour. No fallback.

Had I been in their shoes, and I am glad I am not, I'd be upholding that at all costs.

Anything percieved as "not quite on the line" Chris....well... thats the story of the marginalia so far, isn't it?

Og course. The Swanson family HAVE done what they like, so far.

The result being?

You judge.

I only wrote what i personallly believe to be the case..in all fairness. And place and type of sale as in agreement with Mr. Stewart Evans.




Phil

[Fisherman]

Ally: And this is yet another point that you completely blew by in your attempt to drown out facts: the one calling card (as you yourself put up repeatedly) of Parkinson's is Micrographia. Which is not displayed in the suspect line.

Micrographia is not the one calling card of Parkinsons. Iīve made that point in my posts, where I have mentioned three calling cards.

Ergo, Davis wasn't saying he HAD parkinson's.

I have never claimed that Davies did say that, Ally. I have, however, claimed that Davies apparently thought he could see traits in Swansons handwriting that led him to believe that PD - or any related disease in the same spectre of neurological diseases - could have been at play.

Not an accurate statement.

It was a statement in a listing of different theoretical suggestions, leading up to the conclusion that we seemingly have a riddle on our hands. As such, it cannot be wrong, Ally.

Or he had a severe hand tremor that only presented itself after exertion. Like after he'd spent all day tying ties.

There are a number of such possibilities, actually. Just as I said in my post to Nemo.

Selective argument on the part of people who refuse to concede Davis wasn't saying he had Parkinson's. Yes.

Ah - you are obviously not speaking of me here. Good.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Og course. The Swanson family HAVE done what they like, so far.

The result being?

You judge.

As far as I'm concerned, the Swansons have not behaved improperly in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, they have provided a wealth of documentation for the annotations.

The Swansons have been unfortunate enough to find themselves on the receiving end of the antics of the lunatic fringe of Ripperology - possibly because all that documentation has acted as a supply of troll-food - but that says nothing bad about the Swansons. In a way, it's probably a badge of honour.

[Ally]

I cannot, and this is MY bottom line, see a gutter press newspaper like the News of the World, as it was in the 1970's and 1980's, simply turning down the chance to trump everyone with a World Wide Smash Scoop..the CERTAIN name of Jack the Ripper, given the type of newspaper they were, the zealousness of all things Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) and the fact that the fascination for JTR was highly prominent at the time. It just would not happen. It is as simple as that.

While I agree with everything said in the start of the post, this is where the post goes awry. Why is it so hard for people to accept the truth. The NOTW did not have the CERTAIN name of jack the ripper. First, they didn't even have a first name for Jack the Ripper. And they didn't have the name of Jack the Ripper. They had one police officer's opinion about who another police officer THOUGHT was jack the ripper. That is not the same thing as having the "certain name of Jack the Ripper."