Private sale

[Robert]

Lechmere, I advise you to publicise the faulty jar immediately. Even at this late juncture, there may be time for you to make amends and save the world of marmalade from chaos and mayhem.

I blame you for this, Lechmere - if only you'd wanted jam, this never would have happened.

[Rubyretro]

This conversation is all hilarious. Forget marmalade. There is still something not right about the Marginalia. I have no axe to grinde -I'd just like to know the truth -why did Jim glue in that letter and try to pretend that the book was from Anderson ? Is there one single thing independant of the Swanson family that suggests that DSS had a shaky hand ? Its easy and fun to take the piss but no ones given any answers to precise questions.

[Sally]

The real question is: Did Paddington forge his own luggage label - and if he did, was he suffering from Shaky Paw Syndrome?

[Chris]

I have no axe to grinde -I'd just like to know the truth -why did Jim glue in that letter and try to pretend that the book was from Anderson ?

But did he try to pretend the book was from Anderson?

[Chris]

The real question is: Did Paddington forge his own luggage label - and if he did, was he suffering from Shaky Paw Syndrome?

More likely Paddingtonism, I think ...

[Lechmere]

My guess is he glued the letter to create a false impression - but that doesn't mean he definitely forged the Marginalia.
But it should be a warning sign - buyer beware until the Marginalia is properly tested with a more sceptical eye than before.

I am also (it must be said) a little uneasy about those two documents going missing – the Warren Memorandum and the list of victims/attacks.

They are potentially financially valuable in their own right – possibly of greater monetary value than the Marginalia. The Warren Memorandum is much more historically valuable compared to the Marginalia as an insight into the investigation.

Jim Swanson claimed he had just discovered them in 1987, but they featured in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum documents that date – we are told – from 1981.

Should I add that neither had been tested or subjected to critical scrutiny prior to their disappearance?

Needless to say this is just another cloud hanging over the DS Swanson story.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

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.

I think if you asked an average person the name of a condition causing a tremor, more would probably mention Parkinsons than any other...therefore to me it seems that Parkinsons itself would be the mundane answer you mention...

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.

So you readily accept that Jim Swanson was talking in the context of memory, yet choose to believe he meant something else. That's perverse.

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.

I think it unlikely that he did not consider the provenance of the supporting documents, which is the key to their being accepted as genuine. The likelihood is that both this and the possibility of forgery (by ANY means) was at the front of his mind.

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.

How do you know he did not simply come across the letter and assuming it belonged with the book, innocently stuck it in there? Not everybody is as devious and crooked as you seem to feel they are.

But I personally am not satisfied with the situation this has caused. I do not think the Marginalia has been properly tested.

That is an opinion you are of course quite free to hold...but also one which, unless you are prepared personally to fork out, you seem unlikely to see fulfilled.

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.

I suspect he mentioned Parkinsons as a generic comment on a possible condition, (the "such as" tends to give it away)...as I mentioned earlier I have very shaky handwriting, yet unless very tired still maintain the physical dexterity to undertake quite fiddly tasks...Obviously I can't speak for anybody else, let alone DSS, but it proves, to me at least, that the one fact need not preclude the other.

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.

No I rather think it isn't.

I'm sorry Ed but your reasoning does seem to be convoluted to say the very least

All the best

Dave

[Chris]

Needless to say this is just another cloud hanging over the DS Swanson story.

Actually, it's not "needless to say" at all. I wish you would explain yourself. It's certainly a shame the documents have gone missing, but why should it be a 'cloud', and what exactly do you mean by that?

[Lechmere]

Cog
I don’t agree that a professional would be so specific as to pluck ‘neurological conditions, such as parkinsonism’ out of thin air when he could have just ascribed the tremor to old age.
I don’t think for a second that Dr Davis would conflate a condition that is accompanied by severe loss of faculties with a minor physical difficulty.
Dr Davis was not writing his report for an average person. It was essentially an internal report not for public consumption.
If I were a naturally rude person I could accuse you of slithering bluster to cover up a facile and convoluted argument, and other such things.

I wouldn’t do that, partly because I like to think I am not naturally rude, but also because on occasion I get a mild amount of enjoyment out of discussing various ‘Ripperological‘ topics with you and it would tend to sour things.

It isn’t perverse to suggest that Jim Swanson did not just mean mental faculties – simply because he chose to use the expression ‘all his faculties’. People do talk in that way all the time.

You could ask me if I had ever broken my leg and I might reply that I had never broken any of my limbs – which would imply arms and legs even though the context might superficially just suggest legs.

If you read Dr Davis’ reports there is not the slightest hint that he considered the supporting documents as anything else but the ‘known writing of Swanson’.
He refers to the supporting documents as ‘the known writing’ and the Marginalia as [I]‘the questioned writing’[/I].
You contention that you ‘think it unlikely that he did not consider the provenance of the supporting documents’ is completely unsupported.

The reason I don’t think Jim Swanson simply stuck the letter over the inscription in error was because he stuck a letter from Anderson over an inscription that was blatantly from someone else. I do not think that Jim Swanson was stupid.

In any case all that I am actually suggesting is that there are strong grounds for suspicion that Jim Swanson was trying to create a false impression. It cannot be proved at this juncture.

These grounds for suspicion should lead an investigator to take seriously the possibility that a real effort may have been made to copy DS Swanson’s handwriting. This was not the case in Dr Davis’ second report.

[Chris]

If I were a naturally rude person I could accuse you of slithering bluster to cover up a facile and convoluted argument, and other such things.

I wouldn’t do that ...

That's better. That's funnier.

[Ally]

Fisherman,
Before I respond at length, I am on a mobile device, can you please state where precisely YOU got the idea that upward stroke shakiness was a prevalent aspect of Parkinson's exemplified in most patients?

Will repsond when I am on a non-mobile.

[Lechmere]

The two missing documents are financially and historically valuable - yet they have been mislaid or lost or whatever.
The Warren memorandum changed our knowledge of the case and Swanson's involvement in it – it is the ‘eyes and ears’ document.

Just say, hypothetically, that the Marginalia was tested again by a reputable auction house and some of it was found to be forged. What would that potentially imply about those missing documents?

I believe the Marginalia cannot be accepted until it is re-tested. By the same token the two missing documents must be counted as being of doubtful provenance until the Marginalia issue is resolve.

If the Marginalia is tested and found to be 100% genuine then there would be no reason to question those two documents even if they remained missing.

That is why the DS Swanson story is in the air as things stand.

[Jenni Shelden]

I think its sad Lechmere's only friends are Paddington Bear - fictitious character and Elvis - deceased

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I didn't tell you about my other friends.
And I was told that Elvis Lives.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

If I were a naturally rude person I could accuse you of slithering bluster to cover up a facile and convoluted argument, and other such things.

I wouldn’t do that, partly because I like to think I am not naturally rude, but also because on occasion I get a mild amount of enjoyment out of discussing various ‘Ripperological‘ topics with you and it would tend to sour things

And if I were a naturally rude person I'd accuse you of a sneaky smear campaign, a sort of damnation by the back door...but of course neither of us are really like that are we Ed? I too derive pleasure from our occasional discussions...I got the same sort of feeling only yesterday when I finally pulled a wobbly molar that'd been bothering me for weeks...

It isn’t perverse to suggest that Jim Swanson did not just mean mental faculties – simply because he chose to use the expression ‘all his faculties’. People do talk in that way all the time.

You could ask me if I had ever broken my leg and I might reply that I had never broken any of my limbs – which would imply arms and legs even though the context might superficially just suggest legs.

It's perverse when you admit that Jim Swanson was talking in the context of mental faculties, but then consciously choose to interpret his comment in an entirely different light. That takes a very special form of logic, and under the circumstances I think "Perverse" and "Convoluted" are putting it kindly.

The alleged analogy with a broken limb is no such thing. You are comparing the general with the specific. If you asked me personally if I was in possession of all my faculties, because I have no insurmountable problems, I'd answer yes...if you asked me if I had any physical problems, I'd confess to a dodgy heart and handwriting difficulties...but they don't unduly prevent me from exercising such faculties as I generally possess.

I you read Dr Davis’ reports there is not the slightest hint that he considered the supporting documents as anything else but the ‘known writing of Swanson’.
He refers to the supporting documents as ‘the known writing’ and the Marginalia as ‘the questioned writing’.
You contention that you ‘think it unlikely that he did not consider the provenance of the supporting documents’ is completely unsupported

Ed it's the man's profession...it's what he does...it's inconceivable that he didn't consider whether the supporting documents were genuine. It'd be the first thing he thought of. If you suggest otherwise you're surely impugning his professional reputation? If he wrote "known writing" that's his professional view, and he wouldn't have expressed it without satisfying himself of that.

The reason I don’t think Jim Swanson simply stuck the letter over the inscription in error was because he stuck a letter from Anderson over an inscription that was blatantly from someone else. I do not think that Jim Swanson was stupid.

In any case all that I am actually suggesting is that there are strong grounds for suspicion that Jim Swanson was trying to create a false impression. It cannot be proved at this juncture.

Ah so now we're getting to it...we've now blown away the pretence that you're NOT suggesting Jim Swanson would lie or deceive...you are in fact suggesting that he indeed might've...nice to know where we really stand...

These grounds for suspicion should lead an investigator to take seriously the possibility that a real effort may have been made to copy DS Swanson’s handwriting. This was not the case in Dr Davis’ second report.

Yet Davis expressed his professional opinion that

I have concluded that there is very strong support for the view that this note was written by Donald Swanson.

Consequently I have concluded that there is very strong support for the view that the Set 2 notes were written by Donald Swanson

Summary:

1) I have concluded that there is very strong support for the view that the notes towards the bottom of page 138 in Donald Swanson’s copy of The Lighter Side of my Official Life and the notes on the last leaf in this book were written by Donald Swanson.

2) I have concluded that there is no evidence to support the view that the final line on the last leaf of the book was added much later to a pre-existing text. I have also found no evidence to support the view that this line was written by Jim Swanson.

How much more explicit do you want a professional man to be?

Sorry Ed, it won't wash

All the best

Dave