Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Chris]

James Swanson is correct he had the book which contained the annotations and taking it literally the two combined did name a suspect "A Polish Jew"

Anderson's book described the suspect as "a Polish Jew", but did not name him.

In contrast, the letter I quoted refers to information "that names the "suspect"". Obviously that means a name was given, not just a description.

You can argue if you wish that the statement in the letter wasn't true, or that the letter is a fake - or even that the name was subsequently altered. But it won't do to argue that the information could name the suspect, if it didn't state the suspect's name.

[Trevor Marriott]

Another viewpoint

No, we don't agree to disagree, Trevor. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying. It seems that what you are saying really has nothing much to do with Charles Nevin, but is simply an argument that by 'names' Jim Swanson meant an ethnic group rather than a personal name. Fair enough. I think that's a desperate stretch, even if Jim hadn't underlined 'names' to give it an emphasis that means a personal name. But fair enough.

I have no argument with Charles Nevin I simpy referred to his comment to highlight my point that there is not irrefutable proof that the name Kosminski was written in the marginalia in 1981. He does not confirm that fact in what he wrote. He refers to an unknown polish jew. I take onboard all the other comments which have been written about this but it is still an argueable point.

As to the letter Chris posted which includes

"I have in my possession authentic printed & written information that names the "suspect,"

James Swanson is correct he had the book which contained the annotations and taking it literally the two combined did name a suspect "A Polish Jew"

The News of the World didn't buy 'the book and its contents'. They could have got that from a library or a bookseller for a fraction of what Jim was paid. It was the marginalia they bought and paid for, of that you can rest assured. And they paid for the exclusive rights to the story, of course.

[PaulB]

I have explained my position and my mindset in this matter I dont expect for one minute that those who champion the marginlia as being totally authentic would agree.

The suspect being named could refer to the unknown polish jew (Andersons Book) as i said before its not just about the marginalia its about the book that it was found in and the contents, and all the authors of that book.

The NOW were paying for the book and its contents not just the marginalia.

But we must agree to disagree as always perhaps one day you may agree with something I write ?

No, we don't agree to disagree, Trevor. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying. It seems that what you are saying really has nothing much to do with Charles Nevin, but is simply an argument that by 'names' Jim Swanson meant an ethnic group rather than a personal name. Fair enough. I think that's a desperate stretch, even if Jim hadn't underlined 'names' to give it an emphasis that means a personal name. But fair enough.

The News of the World didn't buy 'the book and its contents'. They could have got that from a library or a bookseller for a fraction of what Jim was paid. It was the marginalia they bought and paid for, of that you can rest assured. And they paid for the exclusive rights to the story, of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mmmm. And you are being shown it. A letter dated 26 March 1981 referring to the suspect being named in the marginalia, and the undisputed fact that the News of the World saw the marginalia and paid for the rights. And, as Chris says, unless you are going to argue that someone else's name was originally in the marginalia and was somehow erased and replaced with 'Kosminski', there is no reason to supposed that the name referred to in that 1981 letter wasn't 'Kosminski'. And Charles Nevin's post does not alter that in any way, shape or form, although I am trying to give you an opportunity to explain clearly and concisely why you think otherwise.

I have explained my position and my mindset in this matter I dont expect for one minute that those who champion the marginlia as being totally authentic would agree.

The suspect being named could refer to the unknown polish jew (Andersons Book) as i said before its not just about the marginalia its about the book that it was found in and the contents, and all the authors of that book.

The NOW were paying for the book and its contents not just the marginalia.

But we must agree to disagree as always perhaps one day you may agree with something I write ?

[PaulB]

You see I am using you favourite term "show us the proof" !

Mmmm. And you are being shown it. A letter dated 26 March 1981 referring to the suspect being named in the marginalia, and the undisputed fact that the News of the World saw the marginalia and paid for the rights. And, as Chris says, unless you are going to argue that someone else's name was originally in the marginalia and was somehow erased and replaced with 'Kosminski', there is no reason to supposed that the name referred to in that 1981 letter wasn't 'Kosminski'. And Charles Nevin's post does not alter that in any way, shape or form, although I am trying to give you an opportunity to explain clearly and concisely why you think otherwise.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, Trevor, you do know who Charles Nevin is don't you? I'm begining to get the impression that you think he was somebody with access to the marginalia in 1981.

yes I know and I am not suggesting for one minute he has access to the marginlia or the book in 1981

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Trevor, but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. A letter to the News of the World dated 26 Marsh 1981 states that the marginalia 'names the suspect'. Nothing, absolutely nothing, Charles Nevin says even remotely suggests that the marginalia did not name the suspect when seen by the News of the World and nothing whatsoever in the actions of the News of the World in buying the rights to the story suggests that the offered goods failed to meet expectations.

And as Simon Wood has also written, 'Show me documentary evidence that in 1981 the News of the World had sight of the name Kosminski and all nagging doubts will crumble to dust.'

I don't say that anything under discussion meets that demanded criteria, but Chris is perfectly correct in saying that you have to juggle with the facts a hell of a lot to argue that that 1981 letter isn't referring to the name 'Kosminski' and doesn't mean that the News of the World journalists who saw the marginalia and assessed it didn't see the name 'Kosminski' there on the page.

You see I am using you favourite term "show us the proof" !

[PaulB]

Nevin only saw the full version and could only give an opinion on what was before him that being the name Kosminksi a polish jew. From what was before him he concluded that Kosminski was an unnkown Jew which he was at that time.

However in Anderson book the entry relates to an unknown jew ! So if Kosminski`s name wasnt in the marginalia in 1981 the only thing anyone could refer to was an unknow polish jew.

Actually, Trevor, you do know who Charles Nevin is don't you? I'm begining to get the impression that you think he was somebody with access to the marginalia in 1981.

[PaulB]

Nevin only saw the full version and could only give an opinion on what was before him that being the name Kosminksi a polish jew. From what was before him he concluded that Kosminski was an unnkown Jew which he was at that time.

However in Anderson book the entry relates to an unknown jew ! So if Kosminski`s name wasnt in the marginalia in 1981 the only thing anyone could refer to was an unknow polish jew.

Trevor, how would Charles Nevin know what was or wasn't in the marginalia in 1981?

[PaulB]

You are perhaps totally right but there is a doubt and that doubt must remain unitl the proof is in writing before every one.

Lets not just get carried away with the marginlia it is the whole package they were buying which was the book with its marginlia contents. The book on its own would have been of some interest because it suggsted that the police had gone one step nearer the identification or apprehension of the killer than had ever been mentioned previoulsy that on its own must have been worth something to a newspaper.

And of course as Simon Wood argues why did the NOW decide against printing it at all if it contained such vital infprmation on one of the countrys most infamous serial killers and let a rival newspaper have the publicity.

Sorry, Trevor, but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. A letter to the News of the World dated 26 Marsh 1981 states that the marginalia 'names the suspect'. Nothing, absolutely nothing, Charles Nevin says even remotely suggests that the marginalia did not name the suspect when seen by the News of the World and nothing whatsoever in the actions of the News of the World in buying the rights to the story suggests that the offered goods failed to meet expectations.

And as Simon Wood has also written, 'Show me documentary evidence that in 1981 the News of the World had sight of the name Kosminski and all nagging doubts will crumble to dust.'

I don't say that anything under discussion meets that demanded criteria, but Chris is perfectly correct in saying that you have to juggle with the facts a hell of a lot to argue that that 1981 letter isn't referring to the name 'Kosminski' and doesn't mean that the News of the World journalists who saw the marginalia and assessed it didn't see the name 'Kosminski' there on the page.

[Trevor Marriott]

I understand what you are saying, Colin, but, like you, I don't grasp Trevor's reasoning at all and I am trying very hard to get a handle on it. Mr Nevin was suggesting that the idea of a poor Polish Jew being Jack the Ripper wasn't exciting enough for the News of the Worldat that time. But Trevor seems to think that by not naming 'Kosminski' Mr Nevin was saying that 'Kosminski' wasn't named in the marginalia when it was seen by the News of the World. For Trevor to be correct, Mr Nevin would have to have known that he was publishing a fraudulent story, was publishing a story about annotations which weren't there when seen by the News of the World. That's a remarkable thing to suggest, especially if Mr Nevin and the Daily Telegraph took it into their heads that it was libelous. So obviously we're missing something that Trevor can see.

Or Trevor's reasoning is way off kilter.

Which do you think?

Nevin only saw the full version and could only give an opinion on what was before him that being the name Kosminksi a polish jew. From what was before him he concluded that Kosminski was an unnkown Jew which he was at that time.

However in Anderson book the entry relates to an unknown jew ! So if Kosminski`s name wasnt in the marginalia in 1981 the only thing anyone could refer to was an unknow polish jew.

[lynn cates]

turn of phrase

Hello Messrs. Begg, Marriott. Is it at all possible that the phrase: "names the suspect" could be taken in two ways?

1. Names the suspect as Kosminski.

2. Names the suspect as a Polish Jew.

I recognise that the latter would be a tad sloppy and not the best meaning for the phrase.

Disclaimer: I have no interest here and have the same misgivings voiced by all veteran researchers vis-a-vis the marginalia.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you. The problem I am having with your reasoning or logic is that Charles Nevin would never have touched the marginalia if he had known or suspected that it did not name Kosminski when seen and assessed by representative of the News of the World.

Your argument to Chris is therefore utterly wrong.

It's not a matter of interpretation, Trevor. It was stated in a letter dated 26 March 1981 that the marginalia 'namesthe suspect'. If Charles Nevin writing 'but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it...' shows that the marginalia did not contain a name, as you argue, then you are accusing or suggesting that Charles Nevin and the Daily Telegraph published something which they knew to be fraudulent. Is that what you are suggesting?

Because if you are not saying that then it follows that Charles Nevin's comment has no bearing whatsoever on whether the marginalia named anyone or not. And we are left with the assertion made in March 1981 that the marginalia 'names the suspect'.

And let's not forget that a representative of the News of the World inspected and assessed the marginalia with its promised name before paying for exclusive rights to the story. Do you suppose they forgot to notice that the promised and all-important promised name was missing? Do you suppose they'd have paid for the story without the promised name?

You are perhaps totally right but there is a doubt and that doubt must remain unitl the proof is in writing before every one.

Lets not just get carried away with the marginlia it is the whole package they were buying which was the book with its marginlia contents. The book on its own would have been of some interest because it suggsted that the police had gone one step nearer the identification or apprehension of the killer than had ever been mentioned previoulsy that on its own must have been worth something to a newspaper.

And of course as Simon Wood argues why did the NOW decide against printing it at all if it contained such vital infprmation on one of the countrys most infamous serial killers and let a rival newspaper have the publicity.

[PaulB]

Hi, Paul,

I simply don't get the confusion here. This is the text of the letter as quoted by Trevor, but with the emphasis removed:

This is the key passage, I think:

If the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence the NotW would have been interested. If the killer had been named as the Archbishop of Canterbury the NotW would have been interested. However, as the killer was named only as 'Kosminski' an unknown Polish Jew, it would have been of no interest to the NotW's readership. Nowhere in the letter is it overtly stated that the suspect was named or unnamed, only that he is an 'unknown'. The context, however, suggests, to me, that the suspect, though named, was a complete unknown - a nobody - and therefore not a person who would appeal to the salacious appetite of the typical NotW reader.

I should add that I don't doubt the sincerity of Trevor's belief, just don't understand the rationale behind it in this instance.

Regards, Bridewell.

I understand what you are saying, Colin, but, like you, I don't grasp Trevor's reasoning at all and I am trying very hard to get a handle on it. Mr Nevin was suggesting that the idea of a poor Polish Jew being Jack the Ripper wasn't exciting enough for the News of the Worldat that time. But Trevor seems to think that by not naming 'Kosminski' Mr Nevin was saying that 'Kosminski' wasn't named in the marginalia when it was seen by the News of the World. For Trevor to be correct, Mr Nevin would have to have known that he was publishing a fraudulent story, was publishing a story about annotations which weren't there when seen by the News of the World. That's a remarkable thing to suggest, especially if Mr Nevin and the Daily Telegraph took it into their heads that it was libelous. So obviously we're missing something that Trevor can see.

Or Trevor's reasoning is way off kilter.

Which do you think?

[PaulB]

The reasoning and the logic is quite simple if the marginalia didnt contain the name Kosminski is 1881 but it did in 1887 then someone had to have added it in those years.

I like you and other posters are trying to conclusivey prove or disprove this issue. I have used the Nevin example as a means of trying to suggest it might not have. You have put froward your interpretation and no doubt others will concur with you, I dont have a problem with that.

I am seeking the truth as is everyone else.

The holy grail of this issue would be to try to find the relevant article that the News of the World reporter filed regarding the book and its marginalia which never went to print. The enquireis I have carried out so far to do just that have proved negative. Unless of course someone can supply me with the name of that reporter or correspondence from him to James Swanson to enable me to pursue this to the bitter end,

Of course even if it were conclusivley proved that the marginalia is all authentic this would not be the holy grail as far as the overall Ripper mystery is concerned because so much surrounding this person named Kosminksi and the covert ID parade do not stand up to close scrutiny and will always be contested.

Thank you. The problem I am having with your reasoning or logic is that Charles Nevin would never have touched the marginalia if he had known or suspected that it did not name Kosminski when seen and assessed by representative of the News of the World.

Your argument to Chris is therefore utterly wrong.

It's not a matter of interpretation, Trevor. It was stated in a letter dated 26 March 1981 that the marginalia 'namesthe suspect'. If Charles Nevin writing 'but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it...' shows that the marginalia did not contain a name, as you argue, then you are accusing or suggesting that Charles Nevin and the Daily Telegraph published something which they knew to be fraudulent. Is that what you are suggesting?

Because if you are not saying that then it follows that Charles Nevin's comment has no bearing whatsoever on whether the marginalia named anyone or not. And we are left with the assertion made in March 1981 that the marginalia 'names the suspect'.

And let's not forget that a representative of the News of the World inspected and assessed the marginalia with its promised name before paying for exclusive rights to the story. Do you suppose they forgot to notice that the promised and all-important promised name was missing? Do you suppose they'd have paid for the story without the promised name?