Private sale

[Lechmere]

Adam
You say in one breath that you do not mind people coming up with their own opinions or conclusions from he documents you put up, and with the next you take exception to me having suggested that letters written by Jim Swanson himself are not very good proof of his own 'innocence'.
This is clearly the case.
This is hypothetical but it how you must test things.
If you want to show that Jim Swanson could not have added to the Marginalia after 1981, you must rely on documents that are not written by him.
Simply put, if he was capable of forging the shaky Marginalia, then he would have been more than capable of 'forging' his own letters after the event. This should be obvious.
Documents that prove the provenance of the Marginalia must come from another hand - such as the Express letter which I have said is the best evidence so far.
Or the unused Scotland Yard documents - except they have not been tested.
This does not mean I am accusing Jim Swanson of having forged his own letters. I am just pointing out the obvious, which is that his own letters cannot be used to prove the Marginalia's provenance.

[Sally]

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

Yes.

Ever since he allegedly stuck a pretend label over that jar of marmalade, there's been a shadow of doubt hanging over him.

He is known for his hard stares, after all - hardly the action of an innocent bear.

[Rubyretro]

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

Talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

[Robert]

Never Paddington! Never! But I suppose it's the old story : throw enough marmalade, some of it will stick.

[AdamNeilWood]

Adam
You say in one breath that you do not mind people coming up with their own opinions or conclusions from he documents you put up, and with the next you take exception to me having suggested that letters written by Jim Swanson himself are not very good proof of his own 'innocence'.

No Edward, you misunderstand me.

I haven't said any stage that I take exception to you suggesting that. You can suggest whatever you want and people will either listen to you or disagree.

What I am saying is that if letters written by Jim are "not very good proof of his innocence", what is the point in me posting more written by him?

This should be obvious.

Documents that prove the provenance of the Marginalia must come from another hand - such as the Express letter which I have said is the best evidence so far.
Or the unused Scotland Yard documents - except they have not been tested.

As I state in the article, myself and Keith Skinner are fully aware that the discovery of a draft article and memo found in a cabinet in the Crime Museum with no obvious explanation is not very satisfactory. But it was there.

But there seems to be a misconception that because it hasn't been stated here that answers are being sought, or more questions being asked, we are ignoring it.

Keith Skinner has searched the incoming document inventory, which was started by former Curator Bill Waddell circa 1982/83. Nothing on the Sandell memo/article. He has worked at the Museum going back many years, and has spoken with the current Curator and the two prior to him.

I have personally written to the widow of Charles Sandell, as well as journalists who worked for the NOTW at the time.

This may or may not turn up some information, but it is a mistake to assume the documents are being blindly accepted.

[Lechmere]

Adam
I am glad to hear that answers are being sought with respect to the Crime Museum documents and it is also encouraging to hear that a realistic attitude towards their provenance is held by those actually involved with them.
A lot of hot words have been wasted on here it seems!
I would think that News International themselves might take it on board and be helpful as it touches on the history of that organisation – albeit under one of their tainted ex-titles.

Regarding the contents of Jim Swanson’s correspondence file, firstly I would hope you were not purely putting those images up for my benefit. Just because I may make a jaundiced remark about the use of Jim Swanson’s own letters as provenance should not spoil it for everyone else, surely. Also, even if they are of no real utility in contributing to the Marginalia’s provenance they are still of interest.

The Jim Swanson-Charles Nevin letter is of interest, but not to prove the provenance of the Marginalia as it dates to 1987, when the Marginalia was seen by Charles Nevin anyway.
The obvious reason why it is of interest is because the letter mentions the missing Warren Memorandum and victim list as if they had just been found – in 1987.
Whereas both appear in the unused Scotland Yard documents which are supposed to date from 1981.
This is a potential indicator that those documents were written after 1987.
This might well be an uncomfortable and an unwelcome suggestion – but I suggest it is one that must be made.
In my opinion it is far better to be totally up front and open about these things so they are not discussed in a climate of rancour and mutual suspicion.

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

I'm not pretending I'm comprehending and you arent.

Since that would not work out anyway, I´d say you´ve chosen a wise path.

Batman and Robin ... had no discernible talents at all other than acting flash.

You know, I somehow thought you´d say something along those lines. And since it is totally wrong, why would I have something against it? If you cannot produce a cheap shot without getting things wrong, then fine by me. It only adds to the overall picture produced by this thread, where saying that it would be good if the marginalia and the documents around it were all properly tested before accepted as being unquestionably genuine, has somehow escalated into a belief that this would border on libelous behaviour and reckless accusations against people.

So it only adds to the overall picture.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

. It only adds to the overall picture produced by this thread, where saying that it would be good if the marginalia and the documents around it were all properly tested before accepted as being unquestionably genuine, has somehow escalated into a belief that this would border on libelous behaviour and reckless accusations against people.

This isn't a fair analysis. The documents have been checked and as there is no real reason to question that by people who are not agenda-driven, it seems like much ado of nothing. In fact, the attempts to find holes in something, and not just with regards to the legitimacy of the Marginalia, are akin to little niggling tumors that become cancerous. It is like watching Fox News when they put a question out there like: Is Barack Obama having an affair with Lindsay Lohan? It is unimportant and it's nonsense, but it plants a seed in the minds of those who are susceptible to such ignorance. There is nothing harmless about casting doubts and questioning someone's integrity without any evidence. It is damaging and a crappy thing to do. By all means, if someone can come up with conclusive evidence about something, they should bring it to the fore. What happens here isn't like that at all. It's agenda that throws out many scenarios until one cannot be absolutely refuted, and then the dogs set their jaws and don't let go.

Mike

[Chris]

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

Strangely enough, an image of him abseiling down from the roof has often popped into my mind as I read Lechmere's posts.

[Chris]

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.

Haven't we already had some contributions from Inspector Clouseau on this thread?

"I suspect ... everyone! I suspect ... no one!"

[Fisherman]

This isn't a fair analysis. The documents have been checked and as there is no real reason to question that by people who are not agenda-driven, it seems like much ado of nothing. In fact, the attempts to find holes in something, and not just with regards to the legitimacy of the Marginalia, are akin to little niggling tumors that become cancerous. It is like watching Fox News when they put a question out there like: Is Barack Obama having an affair with Lindsay Lohan? It is unimportant and it's nonsense, but it plants a seed in the minds of those who are susceptible to such ignorance. There is nothing harmless about casting doubts and questioning someone's integrity without any evidence. It is damaging and a crappy thing to do. By all means, if someone can come up with conclusive evidence about something, they should bring it to the fore. What happens here isn't like that at all. It's agenda that throws out many scenarios until one cannot be absolutely refuted, and then the dogs set their jaws and don't let go.

Mike

Since when is "fair" the quality sought for on this thread, Mike? And if it is, would it not be fair to say that the documents discussed here have NOT all been checked?

Moreover, nobody is trying to "find holes" here - the holes are already in place. A thorough check of the documents involved would serve the purpose of closing these holes.

You speak of seed-planting, and I think you are correct on that score: by implying that there is a hidden agenda behind the wish to have the documents tested before fully accepting them as being genuine, a dark seed is indeed planted. And just as you say, such a thing is not harmless.

As for conclusive evidence, what are you saying? That we need to have conclusive evidence that some of the marginalia material is faked before we test it? That would put the matter in an awkward spot. Normally, things are done the other way around.

Or are you saying that you need to have evidence that documents are sometimes faked, before you agree to having these documents tested too? That surely must be the only reasonable interpretation of your wish.

You suggest that we should "let it go", apparently, and I take it that I am one of the dogs you refer to. So what you suggest is that the marginalia and the surrounding documents should be accepted as genuine, all of it, some of the material never having been subjected to any testing at all. And you state that not accepting it would amount to becoming the cancer of Ripperology.

For what should have been totally uncontroversial and a routine treatment to a significant degree, those are harsh words.

Those in possession of the documents are in the favourable position to be able to say: "We are certain that these document are genuine, but since a fringe fraction of Ripperology has taken it upon them to question this by claiming that the material is either unsatisfyingly checked or not checked at all, we will subject it to such a checkout to once and for all establish the truth. In doing so, we are not implicating any foul play at all on behalf of any of the involved people - we are instead righteously eradicating the implication of such foul play that lies in the regrettable claims on behalf of the fringe Ripperologist fraction mentioned earlier."

There - an outlining of how things could be done with no accusations thrown out, other than the ones directed at those of us who are not convinced believers as yet. And it would hopefully add a fair amount to the overall worth of the collection - provided that the outcome was the one foreseen by you.

Now, Mike, I will sign off from this thread, at least until it takes a more productive direction than the current one. It will have the combined benefits of saving me valuable time and not having you irritated that I won´t let things go.

Is that "fair" enough for you?

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[Chris]

Talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

Well, if you have seen an answer to the question, you can solve the porblem by simply posting a link to it. But if you've been following the discussion, you'll know that the best Lechmere has been able to do is the suggestion about 'agreeing' with the letter pasted into the book, which - as I've pointed out - is no answer at all.

This isn't a game, you know. You and Lechmere have posted numerous suggestions that Jim Swanson - a real (but deceased) person - may have faked these documents, without a shred of evidence to back them up.

If you're going to behave like that, you have a responsibility to explain how the scenario would work, at the very least. So I may as well ask you - why should Jim Swanson have inserted a publication date he knew to be false in the article, when the discrepancy was bound to be noticed if the article was published? What would conceivably be the advantage to him of inserting a false date, rather than not mentioning a date at all?

[Chris]

The obvious reason why it is of interest is because the letter mentions the missing Warren Memorandum and victim list as if they had just been found – in 1987.
Whereas both appear in the unused Scotland Yard documents which are supposed to date from 1981.

This is a prime example of the kind of innuendo this thread has been filled with. There's no reason to suppose it means anything, other than that Jim Swanson put the letters away somewhere in 1981, and came across them again in 1987.

[Sally]

Haven't we already had some contributions from Inspector Clouseau on this thread?

"I suspect ... everyone! I suspect ... no one!"

'This is a very serious matter, and everyone is this reum is under the suspicions'

[Lechmere]

Chris
Clear the spital off your screen and you may be able to read what others say.
This probably won't make any difference as I suspect I am seeing the effect of innate cerebral imbalances. Accordingly your posts result in mild curiosity about what is going on in your enclosed world. Then again I am not than bothered - any more than I am bothered by the quality of your ranting.