Private sale

[Fisherman]

I stand corrected. If, as you point out, they have a different provenance than the Marginalia, how would their authenticity (or not) have any effect in the minds of legitimate researchers on the trustworthiness of the marginalia?

Any material with another provenance than the Swanson collection, that can be given a clean health bill and that somehow is corroborating what is stated in the marginalia will of course contribute to an overall picture of the marginalia as being genuine.

Conversely, any material with another provenance than the Swanson collection, that is somehow corroborating what is stated in the marginalia, but is proven to be a fake, will rub off on the overall picture of the marginalia.

It´s all very simple, thus.

The problem at hand is that if any material that is seemingly corroborating the marginalia is kept away from testing to establish whether it is genuine or not, then this too will reflect unfavourably on the overall perception of the marginalia. One must keep in mind that no document examiner, no matter how skilled and renowned they may be, can be a hundred per cent conclusive when it comes to looking at similarities between two sets of handwriting. The verdict that two different samples display the exact same kind of handwriting is just that - a recognition that either they were written by the same person, or the forger who wrote one of them did a top notch job.

This means that we would be doing things backwards if we were to say that we KNOW for sure that Swanson wrote the marginalia, since Davies was very much of that opinion. Faked material from any source, relating to the marginalia, will - and should! - cause doubt about the marginalia on the whole.

Now, please observe that I am not saying that we DO have a fake on our hands in any respect - I merely answered the question you put to me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

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.

How on earth is any of that an answer to my question. What I'm asking you is why a hypothetical faker would have included this piece of false information, which was well known to be false, and was bound to be noticed if the fake document was ever published.

Are you really unable to suggest a single plausible reason why this might have been done?

(And incidentally, you harp on about people not immediately having noticed the date of the letter pasted in the front of the book. But we're not talking about the letter in the book here, we're talking about the draft News of the World article. You know that the discrepancy was noticed and commented on the first time that article was published.)

[The Good Michael]

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

That was great! I'd never heard of the man before and I thought I knew comedy. Thanks.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Grima Wormtongue.

Mike

[Sally]

The draft article and memo are not faked. If anybody was silly enough to waste their time and money getting it 'tested' - although quite what those 'tests' would involve to be at all meaningful I'm not very sure - all that they'd find is that the NOTW documents are genuine. Nobody without a transparent agenda; and/or personal connection to the suspect they promote so relentlessly (speaking hypothetically and by way of example only, of course) is suggesting otherwise.

It is abundantly obvious that the means of transmission for the incorrect date was Jim Swanson - where else could it have come from in order for Sandell to repeat the error? The context is there - no other explanation is necessary.

I don't know why Jim Swanson made that error; and I'm not going to speculate, either.

The Marginalia has been tested and found to be genuine with a high degree of probability by Dr Davies. That will be quite sufficient for any sane buyer.

I doubt that the NOTW documents will be 'tested', becuase the premise that they're forged is ridiculous.

Apart from the amusement value, and all the publicity that Paddington's got out of it, what's the point of this thread?

[Lechmere]

Not heard of Max Miller?

[Lechmere]

Sally
You have changed your tune a few posts back you said people should be able to raise issues here, now you are wondering what's the point.
Should we take it then that you personally have authenticated the 1923 letter and the Scotland Yard unused documents?

[Fisherman]

Sally
You have changed your tune a few posts back you said people should be able to raise issues here, now you are wondering what's the point.
Should we take it then that you personally have authenticated the 1923 letter and the Scotland Yard unused documents?

That would seem clear. Crystal clear, in fact.

A true force, our Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ah Chris

You seem to have stopped reading my response to you after the second paragraph, possibly due to having a short attention span? Concentrate and read on.

To help you and as summary:

Why do it in the first place?
In this case perhaps the overriding importance, to the hypothetical forger, of the Anderson connection overshadowed other considerations.

Why, if he may get caught?
Fakers often get lazy, sloppy, vain and arrogant.
Fakes are often found out precisely because they have false information in them.

It may have escaped your notice but the Fred inscription was first noticed under the letter in 2006. I am not sure when this information was first publicised, but it is hardly surprising that Adam Wood’s article published in 2012 would comment on the inconsistency between the inscription and the content of the unused article.

[Lechmere]

CPenney

I am afraid that each document is not tested on its own merits.
Therein lies the problem with your argument – which unravels thereafter.

Some documents are tested against other documents to provide their verification.
The 1923 letter was used to provide authentication for the shaky parts of the Marginalia.
If it was forged, then bearing in mind it came from the same general source as the Marginalia, it could only have a devastating effect on the Marginalia’s credibility.

If you remain doubtful about this, then I suppose it is just one of those things that could only be proved to you by it happening.

At the very least it would mean that the 2012 Davis test was invalid and take us back to the ‘inconclusive’ 2006 test.
But it would be worse than this as no reputable researcher or writer would use the Marginalia thereafter.
Unless somehow another comparable document was produced which was tested and found to be genuine. Of all these hypothetical scenarios that isn’t very likely though is it?

The reason I say Dr Davis singled out Parkinsonism, is that it was the only (the single) condition that he mentioned.
It is also quite a significant condition to single out as it is particularly virulent.
I am looking at what Dr Davis said and as I am not in a position to ask him, I can only really go on what he said and not read too much into it.
In the same way as Jim Swanson referred to ‘all’ his grandfather’s faculties. Despite the context, I am going on what he said and not reading more or less into it, as I can’t ask him what he meant.

But I am not just relying on the ‘all’ remark. Jim Swanson also referred to his father tying flies and going fly fishing in Scotland. Neither pastime are suggestive of someone suffering from a form of Parkinsonism. As Jim Swanson was 12 when his grandfather died it is only credible to suggest that his memories cover the period from say 1920-24 – when Jim Swanson was between 8 and 12.
It could be that Jim Swanson’s memories were not direct, but were related to him later. But again we cannot ask him.

Perhaps, Dr Davis did not mean much by the Parkinsonism remark.
Perhaps Jim Swanson didn’t mean to suggest that ‘all’ meant anything other than all his grandfather’s mental faculties.
Perhaps Jim Swanson was going on what his elders later told him about his grandfather’s hobbies and in reality DS Swanson did not tie flies in his later years.

Perhaps – but that isn’t the point. The point is there are reasonable grounds for doubt.

The 1923 letter was unknown prior to the 2006 report, was a non-descript letter whose survival was fortuitous, and contained the useful postscripts about the writer having shaky hands.
Of course it could be that the letter is as it is presented.
However, again that is besides the point. It would be sensible to proceed with a degree of caution before accepting it at face value.

Actually it shouldn’t be necessary to justify why the 1923 letter should be subject to scrutiny. It should as a matter of course. The grounds for doubt that I have mentioned merely add weight to it.

As you are new to this thread, you may have missed what I said about not speculating about other people’s thoughts.
I won’t be explaining this again after this.

Actually what I said was that in debating or arguing with another poster on here, I avoid throwing that poster’s potential motivation in his or her face. I try to discuss the issue they have raised.
It is a question of debating tactics.
When you use such tactics it signifies to me that the person who uses them has no real argument.
That is why I avoid it. I would feel like a twat for using such arguments.

I see Sally has done so – she thinks I am suggesting that the Marginalia has not been properly tested because it furthers my suspect theory.
I could claim that Sally is just on here as she is following me around to extract some sort of ‘revenge’ for my critique of the Hutchinson theory. You commonly see people follow others around to try and extract revenge for a slight on an unrelated thread.
I avoid those sorts of debating tactics as they really get us nowhere, but if others want to adopt them – hey it’s a free country!

Anyway, the manner in which I prefer to conduct forum debates has no bearing on discussing the possible motivation behind some act or another in a historical context for example.
As we have seen, I have taken Dr Davis at face value – it is the other side of the argument which wishes to erase (or obfuscate) the Parkinsonism remark.

[Chris]

In this case perhaps the overriding importance, to the hypothetical forger, of the Anderson connection overshadowed other considerations.

But why should an inscription from Anderson be considered of any importance whatsoever? An inscription from Anderson in the front of the book would clearly add no weight or authority to the annotations. Their weight would be precisely the same wherever Donald Swanson got the book from.

But in any case, I can only keep asking - what could conceivably be achieved by putting an incorrect publication date in the article? It would be no good as 'support' for this hypothetical attempt to pass off the 1905 letter as an accompaniment to the book published in 1910, because that would obviously become insupportable the instant anyone noticed the discrepancy of the dates. What role could it play, unless to alert people to the possibility that there was something wrong with the article, or with the letter in the front of the book, or with both?

It simply makes no sense.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ed,
Im afraid we have to disagree here. The 2006 test was not inconclusive. if it had been inconclusive it would not have said that it was likely to have been written by Swanson (i'm paraphrasing from memory of what it did say which i quoted earlier in the thread.

The 2006 report found nothing that was inconsistent with this being written by Swanson.

The reason for 2012 report was presumably two fold, 1 - there was known DSS handwriting nearer to the date discovered, 2 - people had questioned the last line, this was looked at specifically which it had not been before when the document was taken as two areas rather than three.

This does not mean that the first test was inconclusive, which when we are talking about scientific tests means something quite specific, not general, and if you meant/ mean something more general then you certainly chose a bad word.

I pretty much agree with what CPenny said in reponse to your earlier comment to me so wont go over this ground

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

[

Lechmere;

The reason I say Dr Davis singled out Parkinsonism, is that it was the only (the single) condition that he mentioned.
It is also quite a significant condition to single out as it is particularly virulent.
I am looking at what Dr Davis said and as I am not in a position to ask him, I can only really go on what he said and not read too much into it.

Hi Ed,
Except Dr Davies did not single out Parkinsons, that is the point several posters have now spent days trying to make to you. It seems the majority of people on this thread agree that Dr Davies did not single out Parkinsons.

He gave Parkinson's as an example of the kind of condition he meant.

He said the endpaper notes "show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's."

It is my emphasis

It is like saying, "the dish shows evidence of carrots which is similar to that sometimes sound in the dishes of those who cook using root vegetables, such as Shepherd's pie.

Ok thats not the best but a first effort, pretty good, let me try again

It is like saying "the record shows evidence of vocal harmonies which is similar to those sometimes found in the vocals of those who sing in girl bands, such as En Vogue"

Or perhaps
"the statement shows evidence of stupidity which is similar to that sometimes found in the statements of those with certain brain malfunctions, such as idiocy."

Do you see what i'm saying
there is A (in this case A = occasional hand tremor)
A can be found in the writing of some of those with B (in this case certain neurological conditions)
C (Parkinsons) is an example of B

C does not =A (Parkinsons does not equal the cause of the hand tremor)

best wishes
Jenni

[Lechmere]

I certainly didn't use a bad word Jenni as the first test did not conclude matters.

[Jenni Shelden]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;277562] I would feel like a twat for using such arguments.

I see Sally has done so – she thinks I am suggesting that the Marginalia has not been properly tested because it furthers my suspect theory.
I could claim that Sally is just on here as she is following me around to extract some sort of ‘revenge’ for my critique of the Hutchinson theory. You commonly see people follow others around to try and extract revenge for a slight on an unrelated thread.
I avoid those sorts of debating tactics as they really get us nowhere, but if others want to adopt them – hey it’s a free country! [QUOTE]

I don't suspect your suspect theory has much to do with it.