Private sale

[Chris]

Sorry, Lechmere, but it really is puerile to pretend that you've answered a question, when everyone can see you haven't.

[Sally]

Hmm..

I also wonder why this 'hypothetical' forger didn't bother to sign the faked memo depostied in the Crime Museum after 1987; since he had a nice, convenient copy of Charles Sandell's signature at his disposal.

Seeing as the hypothetical forger apparently had no trouble producing a convincing facsimile of Donald Swanson's handwriting, and managed to produce supporting documents that are apparently indistinguishable from actual draft office documents from the 1980's - and even went to the trouble of typing the fake on several machines, just to make it look as though Charles Sandell had spent some time on it...

Surely it woul've been no trouble at all to sign the memo? And it would've given the thing extra credibility as well!

Curious....

[Robert]

Still thinking here. So far, I have Jim Swanson coming in disguised as a nun
and distracting the assistant with a game of shove ha'penny.

[Lechmere]

Chris I think it's time for your lie down.

Sally - that proves it is genuine - let's all go home now.

[Lechmere]

Robert I know this isn't your forte but if I provide you with scenarios everyone will be asking for them and they aren't necessary so far as I'm concerned and I have better things to do.
I'm disappointed you didn't work a fag break into that one though.

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris I think it's time for your lie down.

Sally - that proves it is genuine - let's all go home now.

Ed,
come on man, its time for you to stop being possibly quite patronising and childish.

You chose to come and engage in a discussion, in doing so you put forward some points based on your thinking, all Sally and Chris are doing is questioning if your thinking is likely/ right.

Yes, that's not necessarily fun for one, but you have done it along the billion posts in this thread too, that's how debate works.

Jenni

[Robert]

The nun comes in smoking a fag (sorry I didn't mention it).

[Jenni Shelden]

I don´t think that Edward has any trouble as such to realize what kind of point several posters have tried to make. It IS kind of obvious, to be perfectly honest.

Nor do I believe that he has failed to see that "the majority of people" on the thread claim not to accept that Davies singled out Parkinsons - for whatever reason (Ehrm).

I instead think that Edward is actually making ANOTHER point than the one several people have tried to make. In other words, I suspect that he believed that all of these people you refer to are wrong.

I would also go as far as to venture the guess that he - on superb linguistic grounds - thinks that the very same people are totally wrong about what Davies singled out or not.

But that is of course something that Edward himself needs to verify before it goes down as gospel!

For my own part, I can only say that my impression is that several people on this thread make a very bleak effort in trying to change what Davies said into something quite different than the thing he DID say. And I would advice strongly against mixing carrots up with Parkinson´s disease - it makes for a detestable soup.

The best,
Fisherman

Christer,
don't be getting silly about things. Ed was perfectly capable of having a conversation with me by himself and didn't need back up.

I'm sure he could have come up with something much better.

Take the time to go back and read what I actually said and the point I was actually making. It was not that because 200 people say something it is right.

It is up to Ed to explain what he thinks, what are you Robin and he Batman?!

Jenni

[Chris]

Still thinking here. So far, I have Jim Swanson coming in disguised as a nun
and distracting the assistant with a game of shove ha'penny.

The unanswered questions of why Jim Swanson would have included the incorrect publication 1905 date in the hypothetical fake article and how Jim Swanson could have hypothetically planted the hypothetical fake article in the Crime Museum are really only the tip of the hypothetical iceberg.

Another question is why anywhere as difficult to get into as the Crime Museum should have been hypothetically chosen in the first place. After all, it wasn't until after Jim Swanson's death that the book went to the Crime Museum - as far as I know, there was no connection with the Crime Museum before then.

Another question is why Jim Swanson should have hypothetically faked the article in the first place. What does the article prove, after all? It doesn't prove that DSS wrote the marginalia, only that nothing had been added since 1981. And had anyone even suggested in Jim Swanson's lifetime that the last sentence had been added?

Of course it might be suggested that Jim Swanson had added the last sentence in 1987, and that was why he wanted proof that the annotations had been complete in 1981. But the idea that the last sentence was added in 1987 is wildly implausible. Even if Jim Swanson had known that Charles Sandell was dead, what a tremendous risk he would be running by tampering with the annotations and then having them published in a national newspaper! Particularly if, as the conspiracy theorists have suggested, the News of the World failed to publish the story because it lacked the name of a suspect. What assurance could there be that there would not be notes, correspondence and draft articles to prove that the final sentence had been faked? And on top of everything, Jim Swanson even wrote to the News of the World to give them warning that the annotations were going to be published elsewhere! Absolutely unbelievable.

[Chris]

come on man, its time for you to stop being possibly quite patronising and childish.

Actually I think Lechmere is doing a useful job of showing his true colours at the moment.

[Sally]

Edward - Wasn't it you who raised concerns over the lack of signature on the memo to begin with? I think it's a (genuine) draft, and that's why it doesn't bear a signature. However, if it is a forgery, the forger missed a golden opportunity to 'authenticate' the memo by adding Charles Sandell's signature.

I confess, I'm a little bemused by the hypothetical forger. On the one hand, he's so clever and ingenious that he goes to extraordinary lengths to complete his subterfuge - and is successful on that score.

(until now.....)

On the other, he misses obvious opportunities. I almost wish he'd fabricated something a bit more concrete regarding Kosminski really - then we could all go home.

.................................................. .................................................. ...

By the way, can anybody see the first part of the annotation at the bottom of the draft article Jack 1? I can make out 'not for release until 1992' in quotation marks, but am unsure about the first part.

- sorry for lack of convenient image, I'm having trouble posting attachments.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I think your time might be better spent castigating Chris for his buffoonery in repeatedly asking a question that I have answered - and in dealing in irrelevant conjecture.
I also don't think you need to act as Chris' wing man - well maybe he does need your support actually.
I am quite satisfied that an unanswerable case has been made that the Marginalia and supporting documents should be examined and that the true potential value of the Marginalia will never be realised without this.
In the face of the evidence presented I have seen twisting and turning - and at the end of it blank stonewalling.
Yet again - as if it needed proving - the stonewallers have demonstrated a reactionary and hostile attitude to the Marginalia even being questioned.
It is like an article of blind faith that it is the true word.
Some just find it too hard to accept that things need to be done properly.
As I have said it really isn't my problem.

[CPenney]

All I am doing is saying that there is room for considerable doubt as the supporting documents were not tested.
This is apparently very controversial.

Tested for what? How would this be done? Would you compare them to other documents? Where would one get those? Would those hypothetical ones also need to be tested, and against what?

You are demanding more documents be tested, so we can only conclude that you consider tests such as these to be a reliable method of determining a document's authenticity. How then, are we to do this, exactly?

How, by the way, have you come to the conclusion that an auction house would use a more reliable expert than one employed by the police?

CPenney
The two other letters were put before Dr Davis in 2012 but in so far as I am able to determine from his report, he did not utilise them as a basis for comparison. Accordingly it is not relevant to have them tested.

The report as reproduced in Ripperologist states that the marginalia were tested against an addressbook and three family letters. Where does it state that one fo the three letters was treated differently than the other texts?

With reference to your little chin scratch remark, it would be up to the tester to determine how the 1923 letter should be tested. It is not always necessary to test a document against another one. The paper for example.

We're not talking about that, though - this is a discussion of Dr. Davis' handwriting examination.

[Chris]

I think your time might be better spent castigating Chris for his buffoonery in repeatedly asking a question that I have answered - and in dealing in irrelevant conjecture.

No. Of course you haven't answered it.

I asked you why a faker would deliberately include in a fake document false information which would be bound to be discovered if the document was published, and - unsurprisingly - you were completely unable to answer the question. It's pretty unanswerable, isn't it?

[Robert]

Apparently the world is crawling with stupid, brain-dead hoaxers who make all kinds of blunders. I guess the hypothetical hoaxer must be one of those.

Actually, I sometimes wonder if this whole thread isn't a wind-up by Lechmere, to see how long he can keep it going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuNxMh2w8A