|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 673
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:42 am: |       |
Guys,
This is really a follow up from Lisa Turners question on the 2nd Kelly photograph thread.
As we all know, the debate regarding the authenticity of the diary is as loud and controvertial as ever....but I dont want to go there.
What I want to know, and I assume Lisa also, is the other documents/photos received. Who validates them ?
Like Lisa mentions, this second photo. How long has it been around ? who had it ? what makes us sure its not a hoax ?
I would like to throw in the Swanson Marginalia. Who has confirmed this is the real McCoy ?
Im not saying these docs are false. What I am asking is who confirms (or confirmed) or denies these docs and on what basis ?
Like I said, the marginalia goes unquestion whilst the diary is ripped (pardon the pun) apart.
Why is that?
Monty
PS If anyone has the answers regarding the photo or the marginalia please post them here...we want to know ! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi, Monty:
Not strictly relevant to Maybrick or Ripper document verification but interesting nonetheless is an article I came across on the web about attempts to verify the authenticity of a supposed "new" photograph of poet Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), there being only one authentic likeness of the authoress known, a daguerrotype taken in the 1840's when she was a teenager.
See "How I Met and Dated Miss Emily Dickinson: An Adventure on eBay" Philip F. Gura. The discussion reminds me a bit of the attempted hoax of a few months ago here when someone posted a supposed photograph of Inspector Abberline. As related in the article, a forensic comparison was made between the known Dickinson portrait and the new photograph, to match facial landmarks, and this comparison appeared to show that the newly discovered photograph might be Dickinson, although there is no way to know if it definitely is, seemingly.
It amused me that Gupta quotes photograph expert Richard Jantz on this investigation: '"[T]he fit is quite good" and thus . . . the new photo "could not be excluded" from consideration as that of Dickinson. [Jantz] continued, "[T]he fit is actually pretty impressive and perhaps makes the case [for their being of the same person] well enough." In a subsequent interview, he went even further. "If it's not Emily, it's a person with a very similar morphology," he said. "I think the case will always be circumstantial, but a strong circumstantial case is a strong case."'
I don't know about you, Monty, but Jantz's statement that a "strong circumstantial case is a strong case" rings an alarm bell with me, and just as with our go-around about the supposed Abberline pic, whomever is trying to pass off a spurious photograph would naturally choose an old photograph that bears as close a resemblance to whichever famous person is supposed to be in the photo as they can possibly get. So the mere finding of "a person with a very similar morphology" as Jantz puts it, is not reassuring. 
All the best
Chris |
Michael Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Chris,
"So the mere finding of "a person with a very similar morphology" as Jantz puts it, is not reassuring." I totally agree with you here, but in my years in law enforcement, I have been taught that each piece of circumstantial evidence is like a strand of rope. As each strand would would make a rope stronger, so the case becomes stronger with each piece of evidence. Sometimes a strong enough circumstantial case brings us a conviction. Just my humble opinion.
Mikey  |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi, Mikey
Yes but this is not a criminal investigation to build a case against a murderer, it's an investigation into whether the artifact, document or photograph is the real McCoy. It would seem to me that there are plenty of Victorian era photographs in existence, many of them having lost their attribution as to sitter, that someone may have found a photograph of a woman they thought looked like Emily Dickinson and attempted to palm it off as a real photo of the poet. Much as Arfa Kidney a few months ago tried to hoax us with a supposed photographic likeness of Abberline. Since there is no other tangible evidence much that this could be a photo of Emily, I would say this is doubtful, much like the supposed images of Lincoln and Brown that Gura mentioned had been hawked on ebay.
All the best
Chris |
Michael Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Ah, very true Chris and I see your point. I'm sure that there will many more hoaxes out there before we ever have any more photos with accompanying provenance.
Mikey |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Hi All,
I have also had the uncomfortable experience of debating the value of placing a photograph into the public domain. The photograph in question may or may not be one of the canonical victims...the balance of probability/ beyond a reasonable doubt, all conspire to defeat any definitive TRUTH regarding the historicity of the object. It is a problem I keep coming across in my ongoing investigations. The bottom line is...you either take it or you leave it, it rather depends what journey we are on.
Rosey :-) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Monty--As no one seems eager to grip the devil by the horns, let me jump in. Here are what I believe to be "the facts." The Marginalia was discovered in the 1980s by Jim Swanson, who inherited a copy of Anderson's 'Lighter Side' along with some other papers of importance. The annotations evidently hadn't been noticed before he got hold of the book. At a later date, a photocopy of the Marginalia, along with a photocopy of Donald Swanson's known handwriting was sent to Dr. Richard Totty, a document examiner at the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory in Birmingham. Dr. Totty felt the handwriting was a match. I don't know whether or not he wrote up a report. Pretty much end of story.
There could be further buzzers and bells to ring, but, of course, such things require funding. We do what we can, I suppose. RP
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
