Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Archaic]

Documenatry: The Jubilee Plot (watch free online)

Hi everybody. I just posted a link to an excellent documentary in the Audio-Visual thread, and thought I'd also post it here as Millen is again under discussion.

The documentary explores the failed 1887 'Dynamite Plot' to assassinate Queen Victoria and members of her Cabinet as they celebrated her Golden Jubilee in Westminster Abbey.

The documentary features interesting interviews with author Christy Campbell ('Fenian Fire') and other historians discussing Clan na Gaul, Fenians, etc.

The Jubilee Plot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTwtigXLNw

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

[Letter from JDS to The Editor of the News of the World, 26 March 1981]

Dear Sir

Jack the Ripper

The impending trial of the so-called "Yorkshire Ripper" is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper case, namely the Whitechapel Murders of the late 1880's.

My Grandfather was Superintendent of the C.I.D. Scotland Yard at that time and had intimate knowledge of the case.

I have in my possession authentic printed & written information that names the "suspect," states why he was not brought to justice, and what eventually happened to him. From the information I have there is no doubt that the C.I.D. at Scotland Yard were certain they had the right man.

This information - with or without further research of contemporary happenings allied to the Ripper murders, and I refer particularly to the so called Jack the Ripper letter and its impact would make some very interesting reading.

I am offering this information for sale. If you are interested I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with you.

Yours faithfully

J. D. Swanson

Reading the discussion on jtrforums, I thought it would be worth reminding people that there is documentary evidence from 1981 that the annotations named the suspect (the emphasis is in the original letter).

Unless it's being suggested that this letter is a fake, or that after 1981 someone rubbed out another name and wrote in 'Kosminski', I'm not sure what room for doubt that leaves.

[Trevor Marriott]

Reading the discussion on jtrforums, I thought it would be worth reminding people that there is documentary evidence from 1981 that the annotations named the suspect (the emphasis is in the original letter).

Unless it's being suggested that this letter is a fake, or that after 1981 someone rubbed out another name and wrote in 'Kosminski', I'm not sure what room for doubt that leaves.

Does the wording unkown polish jew amount to naming the suspect. I refer to Charles Nevins letter

"A fascinating discussion ... I must point out, though, once again, as the then Daily Telegraph journalist concerned, that Jim Swanson was not paid any money for the story ... My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it ... for what it's worth, Jim Swanson also seemed to me a pretty straight kind of guy who then decided to give the story to the newspaper he read and trusted ... and I'm fairly sure, too, that M Fido's book came out some time after my article ...Regards, Charles N

Why wasnt the name Kosminski mentioned why mention an unknown Polish Jew thats not correct becuase the unknown jew was known it was Kosminski according to the way you have portrayed it.

Nice try Chris but still not conclusive in my book !

[PaulB]

Does the wording unkown polish jew amount to naming the suspect. I refer to Charles Nevins letter

"A fascinating discussion ... I must point out, though, once again, as the then Daily Telegraph journalist concerned, that Jim Swanson was not paid any money for the story ... My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it ... for what it's worth, Jim Swanson also seemed to me a pretty straight kind of guy who then decided to give the story to the newspaper he read and trusted ... and I'm fairly sure, too, that M Fido's book came out some time after my article ...Regards, Charles N

Why wasnt the name Kosminski mentioned why mention an unknown Polish Jew thats not correct becuase the unknown jew was known it was Kosminski according to the way you have portrayed it.

Nice try Chris but still not conclusive in my book !

Trevor, could you please explain what your last paragraph means?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, could you please explain what your last paragraph means?

Nevin refers to the NOW and his belief why they didnt publish it. That was because all they had was an "unknown named Polish Jew". Which could be interpreted that the name Kosminski wasnt included in the marginlia/book at that time.

I hope that clears the matters up.

[PaulB]

Nevin refers to the NOW and his belief why they didnt publish it. That was because all they had was an "unknown named Polish Jew". Which could be interpreted that the name Kosminski wasnt included in the marginlia/book at that time.

I hope that clears the matters up.

Thanks, Trevor.

So, you're saying that although Charles Nevin knew the marginalia had the name 'Kosminski' in it when shown to him, he was also aware that it didn't have the name 'Kosminski' in it when seen by the News of the World. Therefore, you are suggesting that Mr Nevin, a well respected senior journalist, and The Daily Telegraph, of fraudulently (if that's the right word) publishing their article?

Actually, I think you might find that Charles Nevin wasn't referring in any way to the specific content of the material shown to the News of the World - in other words, whether it named the suspect or not - but simply to the fact that the News of the World chose not to publish the story because it decided that Jack being a Polish Jew wasn't as newsworthy as Jack being royalty. It was newsworthy in 1987, however, because the upcoming centenary was causing a slight brouhaha.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, Trevor.

So, you're saying that although Charles Nevin knew the marginalia had the name 'Kosminski' in it when shown to him, he was also aware that it didn't have the name 'Kosminski' in it when seen by the News of the World. Therefore, you are suggesting that Mr Nevin, a well respected senior journalist, and The Daily Telegraph, of fraudulently (if that's the right word) publishing their article?

Actually, I think you might find that Charles Nevin wasn't referring in any way to the specific content of the material shown to the News of the World - in other words, whether it named the suspect or not - but simply to the fact that the News of the World chose not to publish the story because it decided that Jack being a Polish Jew wasn't as newsworthy as Jack being royalty. It was newsworthy in 1987, however, because the upcoming centenary was causing a slight brouhaha.

Charle Nevin was referring to the fact that the NOW had not published the article and was gving his reasons why. There is no dipsute that when the telegraph published their article the name Kosminski was clealy visible in the marginalia.

Well what Nevin said and in what context he said it is open to interpretation. You view it and interpret one way I another and I am sure others will do the same.

[PaulB]

Charle Nevin was referring to the fact that the NOW had not published the article and was gving his reasons why. There is no dipsute that when the telegraph published their article the name Kosminski was clealy visible in the marginalia.

Well what Nevin said and in what context he said it is open to interpretation. You view it and interpret one way I another and I am sure others will do the same.

Trevor, okay. Thanks. And sorry to be a pain about this, but I want to make sure I have what you're saying clear in my head. You are saying that Charles Nevin volunteered his opinion that the News of the World didn't publish the story because the marginalia, as they saw it, didn't name anyone and therefore they thought it simply wasn't exciting enough to say Jack the Ripper was a poor Polish Jew?

That's what you're saying. Right?

[Bridewell]

Unknown or Unnamed

My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it .

I think, if the phrase "unknown Polish Jew" is returned to the context in which Mr Nevin wrote it, the meaning is that, whereas the Duke of Clarence, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a famous individual, the person named in the Marginalia, "Kosminski" was, by contrast, an unknown Polish Jew who would have been of no interest to the News of the World's readership. Only if the phrase is removed from its context does the possibility of the suspect being unidentified come into the equation. The suspect was an unknown Polish Jew (as Kosminski certainly is outside the cloistered world of Ripperology), not an unnamed Polish Jew. Mr Nevin is a respected and erudite journalist. Had he meant "unnamed" he would surely have used that word.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

I think, if the phrase "unknown Polish Jew" is returned to the context in which Mr Nevin wrote it, the meaning is that, whereas the Duke of Clarence, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a famous individual, the person named in the Marginalia, "Kosminski" was, by contrast, an unknown Polish Jew who would have been of no interest to the News of the World's readership. Only if the phrase is removed from its context does the possibility of the suspect being unidentified come into the equation. The suspect was an unknown Polish Jew (as Kosminski certainly is outside the cloistered world of Ripperology), not an unnamed Polish Jew. Mr Nevin is a respected and erudite journalist. Had he meant "unnamed" he would surely have used that word.

Regards, Bridewell.

I did venture that explanation to Trevor, who rejected it, replying that it was a matter of interpretation. As I understand it, Trevor's assessment is that Mr Nevin was saying that the marginalia did not name anyone when the News of the World saw it, hence why they didn't publish the story. I'm very interested in Trevor's reasoning here.

[Trevor Marriott]

I did venture that explanation to Trevor, who rejected it, replying that it was a matter of interpretation. As I understand it, Trevor's assessment is that Mr Nevin was saying that the marginalia did not name anyone when the News of the World saw it, hence why they didn't publish the story. I'm very interested in Trevor's reasoning here.

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.

[Bridewell]

I did venture that explanation to Trevor, who rejected it, replying that it was a matter of interpretation. As I understand it, Trevor's assessment is that Mr Nevin was saying that the marginalia did not name anyone when the News of the World saw it, hence why they didn't publish the story. I'm very interested in Trevor's reasoning here.

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:

"A fascinating discussion ... I must point out, though, once again, as the then Daily Telegraph journalist concerned, that Jim Swanson was not paid any money for the story ... My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it ... for what it's worth, Jim Swanson also seemed to me a pretty straight kind of guy who then decided to give the story to the newspaper he read and trusted ... and I'm fairly sure, too, that M Fido's book came out some time after my article ...Regards, Charles N

This is the key passage, I think:

My understanding is that the News of the World would have been interested if the killer had been named as the Duke of Clarence or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that an unknown Polish Jew didn't, if you'll pardon the expression, quite cut it ... for what it's worth.

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.

[DGB]

The suspect was an unknown Polish Jew ... not an unnamed Polish Jew.

I think this is the valuable point, very well put.

Although I can see how Trevor believes it backs up his point of view, I - being one who doesn't share that point of view - read it the same as you Bridewell.

[DGB]

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.

I can see how, if you approach the subject believing that the name was not in there, that the letter could be read to back up your view. Maybe with a hint of wishful thinking creeping in.

But I - like you - find the actual meaning crystal clear.

[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?