Private sale

[Chris]

Of course everyone who has worked at Scotland Yard these past 25 years has been honest and everyone who has gained entry to the Crime Museum - assorted policemen, civilian workers, journalists, crime buffs and hangers on - has been honest or was impervious to bring fooled.

Let's get down to some specifics.

One suggestion is that Jim Swanson, by himself, faked the marginalia and the supporting documents, including the draft News of the World article found in the Crime Museum.

Are you saying that it's credible that Jim Swanson, without any help from anyone else, could have gained access to the Crime Museum and planted the article there?

[Lechmere]

CPenney
In that case you should support the notion that the 1923 letter and the Scotland Yard documents should be verified as they are new documents that have never been tested.
I have humoured the blind acceptors here by giving potential examples at their insistence - that is your innuendo.
But actually it isn't necessary. It is only actually necessary to point out that the documents haven't been tested and should be so they can be accepted. In the same way as the Littlechild Letter was tested.

[Lechmere]

Chris
I quite understand that you are incapable of answering those difficult questions I gave you.
Who knows how many people may have been in on it and what their motivation might have been.
Before worrying too much about that let's get it tested to first. If it is a forgery then I will provide you with a how and who list. OK? If it isn't then it's irrelevant.
I hope you are able to understand this.

[Chris]

Lechmere

So was that a 'yes' or a 'no' to the question about whether Jim Swanson unaided could have planted a fake document in the Crime Museum?

Come on - you keep saying you want to discuss this subject. Is that just rhetoric?

[Lechmere]

Coming from you - what a joke.
The person who is incapable of answering a question.
I have no need to specify the exact method by which it may have been put there.
Do you understand?
I know your favoured tactic is to try and provoke people to name names - you are at it again - you really can't stop yourself can you?
How sad.

[Chris]

Lechmere

So - just to be absolutely clear - you're simply refusing to answer the question about whether Jim Swanson unaided could have planted a fake document in the Crime Museum?

After going on and on and on for so long about how much you wanted to discuss the marginalia and complaining so much about how no one would talk to you about it?

[Lechmere]

Is there something wrong with you?
I think perhaps that explains things.

[Lechmere]

And by the way - I'd better tell you as you live in a different dimension by the looks of things - I haven't gone on at all about how I want to discuss the Marginalia and I've never complained that no one wants to discuss it.

[Chris]

Lechmere

The thing is, you kept saying you wanted some serious discussion of the issues.

Now you're being offered it. You're being asked just two difficult questions (so far): (1) why would any faker insert obviously false information into a fake document and (2) how on earth could Jim Swanson have planted a fake document in the Crime Museum?

And after all your innuendo and all the mud you've slung at the Swanson family, you think you can just completely clam up and refuse to answer these questions? Sorry, but you can't get out of it that easily. If you're going to carry on implying the Swanson family is responsible for faking these documents, then you're going to have to answer these questions, and plenty more besides!

[Lechmere]

Actually no I don't, it isn't necessary.
And again I haven't said I want serious discussion of those issues.
Are you having secret conversations with someone who you are confusing with me.

[Chris]

Actually no I don't, it isn't necessary.
And again I haven't said I want serious discussion of those issues.

You haven't said you want serious discussion of those issues? You haven't continually complained about people being flippant? You haven't expressed unhappiness about 'quips'?

Well, anyway, if you don't want serious discussion of those issues, perhaps the thread really can be brought to an end, and I'm sure it will be a relief to most people. But if you carry on with the innuendo and the implied accusations against the Swanson family, you're going to be asked those awkward questions again and again, and people will draw their own conclusions if you have no answers.

[Lechmere]

Your remarks trouble me not - they come from someone who is unable to answer two simple questions.
I have no need to dot the Is and cross the Ts to explain exactly how it may have been done.
You seemingly are incapable of understanding this in the same way as you are incapable of answering a simple question.
It is not controversial to suggest that important documents are scrutinised before they are accepted. In the context of the Marginalia, the Scotland Yard documents in particular are important.
In 'Ripperology' this doesn't happen - you are part of the problem.

[CPenney]

CPenney
In that case you should support the notion that the 1923 letter and the Scotland Yard documents should be verified as they are new documents that have never been tested.
I have humoured the blind acceptors here by giving potential examples at their insistence - that is your innuendo.
But actually it isn't necessary. It is only actually necessary to point out that the documents haven't been tested and should be so they can be accepted. In the same way as the Littlechild Letter was tested.

I (and I doubt that many) would object to these other documents being tested. The point is, however, that these other documents have the same excellent provenance as the rest of the Swanson collection, and there is no reason to suspect them of being other than what they purport to be. That's not definitive proof, but when we do have the verification of the marginalia, which is clearly the most important document in the collection, what is the value of anyone spending the money to have other ancillary stuff tested?

Even if they were shown to be forgeries, what would that demonstrate? That someone dishonestly tried to increase the sale value of an authentic document but didn't try to actually sell it for a couple of decades?

Also, given the provenance of the collection, and the verification of the marginalia, accepting the other stuff on face value is is not blind acceptance, as you put it. It is the reasonable conclusion based on all the evidence at hand, both analytical and historical.

[Fisherman]

CPenney:

"... these other documents have the same excellent provenance as the rest of the Swanson collection, and there is no reason to suspect them of being other than what they purport to be.

Tucked away at the back of a box at the Crime museum? Is that the excellent provenance you mean? Would it not be fair to say that documents surfacing in that manner actually lack provenance?

Even if they were shown to be forgeries, what would that demonstrate?

That there were forgeries in the group of material surrounding the Swanson marginalia, IŽd say. What further implications that would have is hard to say, but I strongly suspect that the marginalia itself - tested or not tested - would suffer a decline in trust.

Also, given the provenance of the collection, and the verification of the marginalia, accepting the other stuff on face value is is not blind acceptance, as you put it. It is the reasonable conclusion based on all the evidence at hand, both analytical and historical.

It is nevertheless accepting important historical documents on face value. Why would we do that? What would it say about us, as discerning researchers? It may well be that the better guess is that these documents are the real McCoy - but since when is guessing an academic discipline? When did it substitute examining things as the better scientific tool?

It is an interesting way of putting things, by the way: "accepting ... stuff on face value is not blind acceptance".

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Your remarks trouble me not - they come from someone who is unable to answer two simple questions.

Well, if this kindergarten stuff is going to be used for ever and a day to excuse you from answering questions as you peddle your innuendo against the Swanson family, I'll answer them. But don't think you can continue the process by coming up with yet more questions as a diversionary tactic.

The answer, obviously, is that where there is scope for reasonable doubt about the genuineness of a document, it is appropriate to take measures to authenticate it. So, yes, it was appropriate to have the handwriting of the annotations examined in the first place. The same principles apply to the Littlechild letter, but that really is off-topic here.

What is not necessary is to respond with further testing to every crazy conspiracy theory about supporting documents being faked, documents being planted in New Scotland Yard and so on. The test is whether there is any reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of these documents. There was precious little after Dr Davies's first report. I don't think there is one iota now.

Now, over to you. Will you tell us why a hypothetical faker would insert information that was well known to be false into a fake document? Will you tell us how on earth Jim Swanson could have planted his hypothetical fake document in the Crime Museum without help from someone else who had access to New Scotland Yard?