Private sale

[Chris]

This thread is dead for the crackpots and a running gag for the others.

Talking of which:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm61yavCp-o

[Lechmere]

Ah Chris
Forgive me – I keep forgetting that I should treat you with toleration, kindness and understanding.
I know you find it difficult to follow what is said so I will repeat this time. But please understand this is an exception as I can’t spend all my time even on the most demanding case.

Fakes are often found out precisely because they have false information in them.
Whatever the motivation for pasting it there, the wrong date on the letter in Anderson’s book was good enough to pass unnoticed by several leading ‘Ripperologists’ and almost became the accepted date of publication of the book.
So there is the answer to your question. For a while at least it passed unnoticed.

Fakers often get lazy, sloppy, vain and arrogant. In this case perhaps the overriding importance, to the hypothetical forger, of the Anderson connection overshadowed other considerations.
It is not a valid objection to suggest that a forger wouldn‘t make a mistake of this magnitude.

Why would the Maybrick forger (I take it that it is a forgery) not make any attempt to copy Maybrick’s handwriting? That was a bit obvious wasn’t it? Actually some believe it still to be genuine.

What of the Hitler Diaries? Full of errors, on the wrong paper and using the wrong ink – schoolboy errors, all. But legitimised by eminent historian and Hitler expert Hugh Trevor Roper, because of the sheer quantity of material (that dwarfs the Marginalia and associated documents) and also he validated the fake Hitler documents against other fake Hitler documents.

[Lechmere]

Let’s take a quick look at the ‘drip-feed’ argument before the mirth it seems to induce some quarters becomes hysteria.

Say hypothetically a body of documents are found in one location and one of them seems valuable enough to offered out for money.
A few years later it is examined and doubts are expressed about one specific aspect of its authenticity.
Then a couple of years later a second document is found from pretty much the same source that exactly answers the doubts.
This second document had apparently been around since the first document was offered for sale, but is now produced to authenticate it prior to a much more lucrative sale.
Then another, third document turns up out of the blue at a totally different location. Bear in mind this third document would reasonably have been found sooner if it had been in that location for perhaps 30 years. The contents of this third document also effectively validates the first document.
This can be described as a drip feed of documents.
It is valid that this should raise suspicions.
It does not prove that the second or third documents are fakes.
It means that any sensible person should be on their guard and the owner of the first document should just accept that as due diligence.

[CPenney]

CPenny
That was an extraordinary thing to say.
If the unused Scotland Yard documents (which have zero provenance) are tested and found to be fakes, then no legitimate researcher would touch the Marginalia with a bargepole.
Can you not see the implication?
The unused Scotland Yard documents would have been forged to legitimise the Marginalia. They were found prior to the second Davis test remember.
Why would anyone forge those documents if the Marginalia was genuine? A bout of over enthusiasm perhaps?

So if I understand you correctly, if there are two documents, one of which has been already authenticated. a second document shown to be a fake could "overturn" the authentication? How exactly would that work?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Just catching up with your other posts.
I am afraid that some of the stonewallers were suggesting pretty much that the Scotland Yard Crime Museum documents shouldn’t be questioned because they were found in Scotland Yard and that meant no one could have dropped them there.
I thought you understood that the ‘back of the filing cabinet’ was supposedly said as a figure of speech by someone (Ada Wood or Keith Skinner I think – not me anyway).
Anyway, do I really need to sketch out scenarios that anyone without a totally closed mind would be capable of thinking up for themselves with a moments reflection?

If Mr X was in the Crime Museum with a bogus document in his pocket, all he would have to do was wait for whoever else was there to be distracted – by making a cup of tea, answering the phone, talking to someone else or whatever, to quickly slide open a filing cabinet and shove it in. Or drop in among an existing pile of papers.
Archives do not tend to be on alert against documents being left there. It is a bit like a shop guarding against someone leaving more stock in it rather than stealing it.

I have never stated that the unused article had to have been left there in the narrow time frame between when the News of the World closed and when it was discovered.

Obviously less people have access to the Crime Museum than a public access Museum. But since 1987 a great many people will have had access. I bet they have no idea who has had access in that time.

When I said ‘well connected’ I meant you would need a connection to gain access. It was not a public access Museum. That is all. It carried no implication as to the number of visits the person may have made.

Let me make it clear – I am not suggesting any specific scenario for who left it there, when they left it there or how they left it there. It was possible for it to have been done. That is all I am interested in.
Therefore it is possible that a faker left it there. Therefore the fact that they were found in Scotland Yard is no defence in itself.

[Lechmere]

CPenney
In my hypothetical scenario, document 2 validated document 1.
So if document 2 is a fake, the validation of document 1 is of no value.
It would also strongly suggest that document 1 is a fake - otherwise why would 'they' have faked document 2?

I would add that if document 3 was faked, but document 2 was not, then it would also imply that document 1 was faked.
As some have pointed out on here, handwriting analysis is a subjective field. The proof of document 3 being a fake (in this hypothetical instance) should outweigh the handwriting comparison between document 2 and document 1.
Because why would 'they' fake document 3 if document 1 is genuine?

[CPenney]

Let’s take a quick look at the ‘drip-feed’ argument before the mirth it seems to induce some quarters becomes hysteria.

Say hypothetically a body of documents are found in one location and one of them seems valuable enough to offered out for money.
A few years later it is examined and doubts are expressed about one specific aspect of its authenticity.
Then a couple of years later a second document is found from pretty much the same source that exactly answers the doubts.
This second document had apparently been around since the first document was offered for sale, but is now produced to authenticate it prior to a much more lucrative sale.
Then another, third document turns up out of the blue at a totally different location. Bear in mind this third document would reasonably have been found sooner if it had been in that location for perhaps 30 years. The contents of this third document also effectively validates the first document.
This can be described as a drip feed of documents.
It is valid that this should raise suspicions.
It does not prove that the second or third documents are fakes.
It means that any sensible person should be on their guard and the owner of the first document should just accept that as due diligence.

All of this is possible, but the initial (important) document was examined twice. The first time, the expert concluded there was a high probability of authenticity. The second time, with additional information, this original opinion of authenticity was strengthened.

Based on this, I would raise three points:

First, these is no shred of evidence that the other documents might not be authentic.

Second, considering how some people, such as yourself, were unconvinced by the strong evidence in the initial examination of the marginalia, how strong must the evidence for forgery on the second document be for people to accept it as conclusive? I assume you would reject any finding that merely "suggested" that the document might have been forged.

Third, even if it were shown to be a forgery, how would that make the authenticated document a fake? How could anyone believe one finding, reject the other, and expect to be taken seriously by anybody?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
All I have pointed the finger at Jim Swanson for is sticking the letter in the book.
All else is hypothesis to justify why the material should be re-examined and any naming of names is because posters such as Chris (particularly Chris actually) mention names and insist on others naming names.
If forgery has been involved then it is not at this stage my business to speculate who did it or even how they did it. It should be obvious with a moment’s reflection that it is and was possible to have done it. That does not mean for a moment that anyone did do it.

I have pointed out inconsistencies, coincidences, problems and flaws in the process and the material as it stands.
As certain key documents have not been subject to scrutiny – that is all that is necessary.
I will say again.
The simple fact that two key documents have not been subject to scrutiny is the problem.

A number of people stonewall this sensible suggestion. They are in my opinion doing the Swanson family no favours by this. They are doing ‘Ripperology’ no favours.

[CPenney]

CPenney
In my hypothetical scenario, document 2 validated document 1.
So if document 2 is a fake, the validation of document 1 is of no value.
It would also strongly suggest that document 1 is a fake - otherwise why would 'they' have faked document 2?

I would add that if document 3 was faked, but document 2 was not, then it would also imply that document 1 was faked.
As some have pointed out on here, handwriting analysis is a subjective field. The proof of document 3 being a fake (in this hypothetical instance) should outweigh the handwriting comparison between document 2 and document 1.
Because why would 'they' fake document 3 if document 1 is genuine?

If you're looking for a potential motivation of adding fake documents to a real one, they could fake it because the original (legitimate) document didn't bring a large enough price.

Please explain the logic of how an authenticated document "becomes" fake if it is next to a forgery.

[Lechmere]

CPenney
What you seem to be missing here is that in 2012 the Marginalia was authenticated by the 1923 letter and this letter was not scrutinised – it was accepted at face value. This makes the validation all but useless.

Saying there is no shred of evidence to suggest that the 1923 letter is a fake is totally besides then point. Unless you examine it in some way who is to tell?
Was there any shred of evidence to suggest the Marginalia was a fake before it was ever tested?
Was here any shred of evidence that the Littlechild Letter was a fake before it was tested?

You test to make sure.
I would not second guess the outcome. If the test was inconclusive then it was inconclusive! It would imply that it was not a good basis for comparison. If that was the end result then tough for all concerned.

In any event doubts about the 1923 letter can be raised as in his first report Dr Davis mentioned the possibility that the shaky writing showed ‘evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism.’
(You might note that Chris misquotes this in his tag line.)

However you cut it, Dr Davis singled out a particularly virulent group of conditions that have various detrimental side effects. He did not suggest a milder or more commonplace cause for the shaky handwriting. He needn’t have suggested any cause in particular if he had none really in mind.
But he did.
But from other sources – notably Jim Swanson – DS Swanson seemed in fine fettle right up to his death.
This apparent incongruity invites doubt as to the nature of any shakiness experienced by DS Swanson.

If you have been following this thread you will no doubt notice that I have repeatedly said that if the documents are re-tested by an independent source – ideally or probably at a reputable auction house as part of a sale – then I would accept whatever they said, even if they said that no further tests were necessary. I believe the other ‘sceptics’ have said much the same.
So the tired old excuse that further objections will be raised does not wash.

If you don’t think that if, say, the Scotland Yard documents or the 1923 letter were found to forgeries, then this would demolish the Marginalia, then that is your prerogative.
I don’t think anyone would pay tuppence for it in those circumstances.
Actually it would still have a small value as a book in its own right and as a curio.

[Robert]

Lechmere, perhaps you could tell me whether or not this hypothetical forger wanted the article to be noticed. If yes, then all he'd need to do would be to post it to the museum, perhaps using recorded delivery or guaranteed delivery - it would save on the cost of the dark glasses and false beard. If no, then what would be the point of the forgery?

[Lechmere]

CPenney

Regarding your earlier point about the 2006 Davis report.
I will ignore your semantic discourse on the meaning of conclusive, and pass onto your comment that the 2006 report should be considered as superseded.

In his second report Dr Davis states:
‘This report should be read in conjunction with that earlier report.’

That implies that the ‘Parkinsonism’ reference, for example, stands.

I will comment on your assertion that the 2012 should be accepted.
If you have been following this thread you will be familiar with the reason I gave for not accepting it as the final word.

I have given reasons for suggesting that it might be the case that in 2012 Dr Davis may have been sub-consciously influenced to unintentionally suspend some of his critical faculties, compared to the circumstances under which he carried out his first test in 2006.

In 2006 he carried out the test at his work place. He had not met anyone connected to the book. The book had not been in the Crime Museum and it was sent to him by someone from the Crime Museum.

In 2012, the book had a close relationship with the Metropolitan police his former employer, though its prominent display in the Crime Museum and on the Met’s website Kosminski was heralded as the major suspect based on the book. Although he no longer worked for the Met, the company he worked for did still have close police connections. Dr Davis carried out the second test in the house of a member of the Swanson family and in the presence of Adam Wood, who is writing a book on DS Swanson. It was Adam Wood who invited Dr Davis to perform the second test.

The first test was at arms length from the principals- the second was not.

There are certain aspects connected with the second test that I have queried.

Firstly the items used to authenticate the shaky handwriting in the second test – which is essentially what it concerned – consisted primarily of the 1923 letter. This letter was accepted at face value and was not subjected to any scrutiny.

Secondly the Parkinsonism issue that was raised in the first report was not addressed.

Thirdly Dr Davis did not give any real consideration to the possibility that the Marginalia may have been a deliberate forgery based on an attempt at copying – as opposed to tracing or merely being similar in style to another person’s writing.

These are the grounds on which I have queried Dr Davis’ second report.

I have already gone into this on this tread in some detail.
I am not going to go back over the arguments surrounding these points.

[Lechmere]

Robert
I do believe you are trying to entice me into a hypothetical area.
I cordially invite you to be more imaginative and open minded and come out with your own scenario. Ideally one that doesn’t involve the hypothetical forger preferring to have a bowl cornflakes followed by a fag, to his important task of depositing the document.
But who knows, perhaps your recorded delivery suggestion might work.

By the way what do you make of the 17th September 1888 ‘Jack the Ripper’ letter that was almost certainly inserted in the Public Record Office and ’discovered’ in 1988?
It’s ridiculous to think that anyone would effectively break into an establishment to plant something isn’t it?

[CPenney]

CPenney
What you seem to be missing here is that in 2012 the Marginalia was authenticated by the 1923 letter and this letter was not scrutinised – it was accepted at face value. This makes the validation all but useless.

Nonsense. Each document is tested on it's own merits.

Saying there is no shred of evidence to suggest that the 1923 letter is a fake is totally besides then point. Unless you examine it in some way who is to tell?
Was there any shred of evidence to suggest the Marginalia was a fake before it was ever tested?
Was here any shred of evidence that the Littlechild Letter was a fake before it was tested?

You test to make sure.

...while keeping in mind that it's authenticity is a completely separate thing to the authenticity to the marginalia

In any event doubts about the 1923 letter can be raised as in his first report Dr Davis mentioned the possibility that the shaky writing showed ‘evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinsonism.’
(You might note that Chris misquotes this in his tag line.)

However you cut it, Dr Davis singled out a particularly virulent group of conditions that have various detrimental side effects. He did not suggest a milder or more commonplace cause for the shaky handwriting. He needn’t have suggested any cause in particular if he had none really in mind.

If you think that "...similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as..." constitutes singling anything out, I think we each have a slightly different view of what "singling out" actually means.

For someone who has stated on this thread and elsewhere that you would never speculate on the thoughts of others, I think it's astounding that you feel there is something sinister about the fact that Dr. Davis chose an example that you wouldn't have (and I, for one, understood immediately what he meant by mentioning Parkinsonism).

But from other sources – notably Jim Swanson – DS Swanson seemed in fine fettle right up to his death.
This apparent incongruity invites doubt as to the nature of any shakiness experienced by DS Swanson.

Not when you realise that Jim Swanson's statement was to counter the quote of Martin Fido saying that the marginalia were the rememberances of an "old man", and thus subject to question.

By the way, I mention this to point out that I have been following the thread, and have been unconvinced by you argument in this area. Frankly, I think dwelling on Dr. Davis' choice of "Parkinsonism" is nothing more than obfuscation.

If you don’t think that if, say, the Scotland Yard documents or the 1923 letter were found to forgeries, then this would demolish the Marginalia, then that is your prerogative.

Indeed.

[CPenney]

CPenney

Regarding your earlier point about the 2006 Davis report.
I will ignore your semantic discourse on the meaning of conclusive, and pass onto your comment that the 2006 report should be considered as superseded.

In his second report Dr Davis states:
‘This report should be read in conjunction with that earlier report.’

That implies that the ‘Parkinsonism’ reference, for example, stands.

So? Stating that you would have picked a different condition as an example of hand tremor is evidence of what, exactly?

I will comment on your assertion that the 2012 should be accepted.
If you have been following this thread you will be familiar with the reason I gave for not accepting it as the final word.

I have given reasons for suggesting that it might be the case that in 2012 Dr Davis may have been sub-consciously influenced to unintentionally suspend some of his critical faculties, compared to the circumstances under which he carried out his first test in 2006.

Suggestions with no proof. I'll await an actual cohesive scenario of how and why any documents were faked, with something (anything) tangible to back it up.