Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Monty]

Yeah, I'd have a wager.

Monty

[AdamNeilWood]

I do have a name, Trevor.

What are you offering?

Best wishes
Adam

ps You can remove your spanner for the time being.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Stephen,
I didn't say I didn't find it strange, nor that it wouldn't be nice to know why they didn't publish it. I was simply curious as to why you considered that their action must be explained. We know the NotW saw the material and bought the rights to the story, and we know they didn't use it, so isn't the 'why' a matter more of curiosity, than a necessity?

If I may throw another spanner into the marginlia works from my dealings with newspapers over the years I can say that newspapers will only pay any agreed sum of money on publishing the article.

For those who are preparing or have already prepared this article they should be looking to provide documentary evidence to :

Prove conclusivley that the name Kosminski was written in the documentation offered to the NOTW in 1981.

Show that an amount of money was actually agreed and what that amount was, and show that it was physically paid to Swanson

Show what the agreement was between Swanson and the NOTW in 1981

Show any correspondence from the NOTW regarding the contents of what they were being offered

Show the rights agreement between the NOTW and Swanson.

Show correspondence fron the NOTW showing why they didnt publish it.

Show correspondence between Swanson and the NOTW in 1987 when they supposedly gave the rights back.

More of the above and less of hearing about what people beleive or suspect.

Anything less will still leave a doubt

I wonder if in this article, out of the blue we shall see the full handwriting experts report suddenly appear after Nevil Swanson saying he doesnt have permission to let anyone read it of have a copy, and the Met saying they no nothing about it and the curator of the crime museum saying his copy has gone missing?

Anyone for a small wager ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, Trevor

But perhaps there was a backlog of TART BONKS MARRIED CELEBRITY headlines.

yes but that would only have put the article back a week or so

[AdamNeilWood]

Great fun Roy,

I think Freddie Starr 'dined out' on that story for years... but wasn't it from the Sun?

Best wishes
Adam

[PaulB]

Well I find it incredibly weird, Paul. If you don't then so be it.

NOTW EXCLUSIVE

JACK THE RIPPER NAMED AT LAST

I reckon that headline would have shifted a lot of extra copies of the paper.

Hi Stephen,
I didn't say I didn't find it strange, nor that it wouldn't be nice to know why they didn't publish it. I was simply curious as to why you considered that their action must be explained. We know the NotW saw the material and bought the rights to the story, and we know they didn't use it, so isn't the 'why' a matter more of curiosity, than a necessity?

[lynn cates]

taunting

Hello Roy. Wonder if he also smelled of elderberries? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

1986



Still agog

[Stephen Thomas]

The only difference was this was supposed to be the genuine article

Indeed, Trevor

But perhaps there was a backlog of TART BONKS MARRIED CELEBRITY headlines.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the editor decided that, after so many titles along the lines of 'Final Solution', 'Case Solved', 'Unmasked' etc etc ,even NOTW readers were becoming a bit sceptical?

Regards, Bridewell.

The only difference was this was supposed to be the genuine article

[Bridewell]

Named At Last

Well I find it incredibly weird, Paul. If you don't then so be it.

NOTW EXCLUSIVE

JACK THE RIPPER NAMED AT LAST

I reckon that headline would have shifted a lot of extra copies of the paper.

Perhaps the editor decided that, after so many titles along the lines of 'Final Solution', 'Case Solved', 'Unmasked' etc etc ,even NOTW readers were becoming a bit sceptical?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

Why Didn't the NOTW Publish?

As a matter of interest, why does this 'have' to be explained? More importantly, how would you propose explaining it? The journalist who wrote the article is dead, the newspaper itself has ceased publication, and the story was bought and the decision not to publish was made over thirty years ago. The News of the World inspected the material, bought the story, and returned the rights to Jim Swanson. All of which is established fact. Why do we need to know why they didn't use the story?

Well I find it incredibly weird, Paul. If you don't then so be it.

NOTW EXCLUSIVE

JACK THE RIPPER NAMED AT LAST

I reckon that headline would have shifted a lot of extra copies of the paper.

[Cogidubnus]

Indeed there are lots of other scribblings in his copy of TLSOMOL. I can't recall them off hand, as my encounter with it was more to do with the matter in hand.

Hi John

Quite understandable. It's actually the literary style of his other marginal notes which interests me more than anything else (his paraphrasing as Phil puts it)...I think a comparison between examples might help us better understand the way his mind worked...

Cheers

Dave

[Phil Carter]

It appears that Swanson was a compulsive scribbler. I stand to be corrected, but I think Paul Begg has a book or two (or seen a book or two) formerly owned by Swanson with plenty of Marginalia in them.

Indeed there are lots of other scribblings in his copy of TLSOMOL. I can't recall them off hand, as my encounter with it was more to do with the matter in hand.

Hello John,

Thank you for this interesting input!

It would indeed be interesting to know if any of those books were ex-police memoirs of the period- and also of course, this would confirm once and for all handwriting anomelies and comparisons of style of notations vis a vis the author's meanings in each book.

Excuse this ignorant question, but if Swanson was a regular scribbler in various volumes and this has been known- then why hasnt examples of these scribbles been used in time gone by to confirm the argument of his handwriting? No offence meant to anyone, but any forgery debate could have been disposed of a long time ago. I stress, no offence!

i do note 'formerly owned'. Do we know who with any certainty owns them now?

Best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

Hi Colin, Phil

It would be an interesting exercise, I agree. Perhaps one of those gents who've handled the volume could kindly advise us of the nature of any other marginalia noted therein?

Thanks

Dave

It appears that Swanson was a compulsive scribbler. I stand to be corrected, but I think Paul Begg has a book or two (or seen a book or two) formerly owned by Swanson with plenty of Marginalia in them.

Indeed there are lots of other scribblings in his copy of TLSOMOL. I can't recall them off hand, as my encounter with it was more to do with the matter in hand.