Private sale

[Sally]

Hi Sally

Re your question about Jack Page 1, I can only make out the same that you have and can't decipher the other bit, but I am posting it here.

And now I must be off - I don't want to leave Jim on his own too long in the museum because he's disguised as a nun but he needs the gents.

Thanks Robert. I take the word immediately preceding the quotation marks to be 'said'.

[Robert]

Hi Sally

Yes, could be 'said.' Maybe first word is official/officials/officer? Very difficult to make out.

[Chris]

I was interested to see it in full as it seems to imply one of the following options:
1) That Jim Swanson had forgotten he had already found these documents and shown them to Charles Sandell in 1981.
2) That Jim Swanson was for some reason gilding the lily and pretending to Charles Nevin that he had just found them, maybe to make Nevin more interested in the story or for some other purpose. I can’t think of any other off the top of my head.
3) That the internal memo and unused article had not in fact been written in 1981 but were written at a later date.

How about:
4) That Jim Swanson remembered that he had shown them to Charles Sandell in 1981 but had not previously been able to find them (or had not looked for them at all) in 1987.

[AdamNeilWood]

You put up a plethora of documents. Yes they were interesting.
When you were questioned about them and their usefulness as support for the Marginalia’s authenticity was questioned, you did not like it.

It wasn't a question of "not liking it".

I put up the documents for people to see the chain of correspondence and form their own opinion based on that. I have no problem with anyone coming to any conclusion they want.

In your case, you looked at them and declared that even though the initial letter from Jim Swanson to the News of the World indicated that the suspect's name was in place on the annotations, "Jim Swanson could have forged his own letter."

At that point I felt there was little point in putting up any further documents as anything contained within them would be subjected to the same outlandish theorising.

You stopped putting up documents immediately prior to a letter that contained a passage that is referred to in your Ripperologist article as follows:

‘On 9 October 1987 Jim wrote again to Charles Nevin, revealing he had found more papers belonging to his grandfather.
‘These referred to Donald Swanson being placed in overall charge of the Ripper case. The papers also recorded a list of victims and alleged victims, as well as the attack on Annie Farmer. Whether this is a record of official opinion or Swanson’s own is unclear. Interestingly, it’s clear from Charles Sandell’s internal memo that Jim had shown the same documents to the News of the World reporter, so this was far from a new discovery six years later in 1987.’

I stated that I was going to post a chain of documents starting with Jim's initial letter to the News of the World and ending with his letter to them of 1987 asking to be released from the agreement.

Next, I posted correspondence between Jim and his accountants.

It was my intention to post the chain of correspondence between Jim and the Telegraph, starting with the letter offering the information and ending with his unpublished letter complaining about the comments of Martin Fido, Don Rumbelow and John Goodman.

But before I could do that you posted your comment about Jim forging his own letter.

So I have got an idea as to its contents.

I was interested to see it in full as it seems to imply one of the following options:
1) That Jim Swanson had forgotten he had already found these documents and shown them to Charles Sandell in 1981.
2) That Jim Swanson was for some reason gilding the lily and pretending to Charles Nevin that he had just found them, maybe to make Nevin more interested in the story or for some other purpose. I can’t think of any other off the top of my head.
3) That the internal memo and unused article had not in fact been written in 1981 but were written at a later date.

As you had only reproduced uncontroversial items or correspondence helpful to the Marginalia’s authenticity, and seemingly the only letter you didn’t put up from that period was the one to Nevin, I felt it was reasonable for me to suggest that you did not want to put up the Nevin letter as it potentially cast a different light on things.
Was I wrong?

Yes.

[Chris]

Hi Sally

Yes, could be 'said.' Maybe first word is official/officials/officer? Very difficult to make out.

I think it says 'or embargoed', following on from the text: 'mainly because some of the most vital documents are missing'.

[Robert]

That looks good, Chris.

[Sally]

Chris - thanks for that - makes perfect sense

[Jenni Shelden]

Edward was capable, yes - I rarely question that. It was your unability to see this capability that annoyed me. You keep on pretending that there is something we´ve not understood, but there is not.
The only lacking understanding lies in claiming that the comprehension failures lies with the side that opposes you. They do not.

I cannot help asking myself what to make of you if we are Batman and Robin. The Joker?

All the best,
Fisherman

+++

Hiya mate,
I do think Edward is capable. That was my point. I can see he is capable, which is why I said what I did. If I thought him uncapable I would have been much more lenient on him, I know he is quite capable of speking for himself, which is perhaps why I was a little off with what felt like your untimely intervention before Edward could answer.

I'm not pretending I'm comprehending and you arent. In fact when unclear, I've asked even when risking great ridicule.

I certainly think Batman and Robin are good examples, they had no discernible talents at all other than acting flash :0

Yours Truly
The Joker

ps hi from Penguin

[Jenni Shelden]

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.

I dont think you can comment about irrelevant conjecture, that is what seems to be your basis for several of your theories, I think others, well me certainly, are only trying to pinpoint what it is you mean.

I don't think you answered the question. Maybe I missed it, the thread is so long, but Im pretty sure Chris was looking out for it.

i don't have a hostile attitude to the marginalia being questioned, nor do I feel I am acting in blind faith.

I dont think things arent 'being done properly' did you mean me or did the mean Chris?

Jenni aka the Joker

[Chris]

Yours Truly
The Joker

ps hi from Penguin

That must make me the Riddler ...

[Robert]

I think I have now divined Lechmere's scenario : Jim Swanson walked up the wall and got in through the window.

Then he left the documents.

Then he walked off, all nonchalant.

(I think you're wandering into the realms of fantasy there, Jones - Capt Mainwaring)

[Sally]

I don't know - sounds like a job for The Pink Panther to me. He is famous for his stealth and general pinkness after all.

Maybe in collusion with The Penguin and - although I hesitate to suggest this - potentially Paddington himself?

I know, it bearly makes sense - but this is a conspiracy we're talking about here.

You know?

[Robert]

Oh no, not Paddington. Say it ain't so!

[Jenni Shelden]

That must make me the Riddler ...

or Catwoman

[Jenni Shelden]

Oh no, not Paddington. Say it ain't so!

dont let his cute button nose fool you Robert, are you a man or Danger Mouse?