Anyway, here we are.
So, you're considering the possibility that the Crime Museum documents were forged. Ok. In considering these sorts of questions, it's often helpful to look at the documents as well as the content because it can give you a fuller picture with which to form your judgement - think of it as two sides of a coin, or perhaps two halves of a marmalade sandwich.
First off, nobody can provide absolute proof here. It wouldn't be viable in the scientific sense of the word. We can deal with probabilities though. There are a couple of simple observations to make about these documents that might help you to decide whether they're forged or not.
I apologise - some of this would be better illustrated, but I seem to be having trouble posting attachments, so you'll just have to look for yourself if you want to verify anything. I think Robert provided a link to Adam Wood's Rip article earlier in the thread if you don't have it already. So, briefly:
Firstly, the memo and draft article have been typed on two separate, and different machines. Pages Jack 1-3 have been typed on one machine (let's call this one machine 1) and the memo and the remainder of the article have been typed on another (let's call this one machine 2!)
The most obvious indicator that this is so is that machine 1 uses a different font from machine 2. This is most easily seen by looking at the lower case 'g' and 'y' in both cases. You'll see that they are quite different.
Secondly, the memo has been edited throughout using editing marks that were standard notation for a copy typist at the time. Some of the editing marks - closure and space marks, for example, make little sense outside this context.
Some of the edits have been done on the typewriter, presumably at the time of writing. Some are handwritten edits, which look like they've been done by one person at first glance.
Other 'instructions' for a copy typist are present. For example the initials 'M.F'. (More Follows) on pages Jack 10 and 11, for example, which are there to indicate that the reported speech at the end of the page continues to the next one. The word 'End' at the end is obviously to indicate that there is no further text.
The obvious, straightforward explanation for all of this would be that the author of the documents - we'll assume in this case that we're talking about Charles Sandell for the sake of argument - wrote the article at at least two sittings using different typewriters. An easy explanation would be that he had a typewriter at home as well as the one he used at work. That would be consistent with his working life, I should think. On the other hand, it's worth noting that the 1987 NOTW letter has been produced on a machine using a similar font to machine 1 (not the same machine, but could be the same type, or similar)
Regarding the edits, the obvious, straightforward explanation would be that the draft was written with the intention of passing it to a copy typist, who would've typed up a fair copy for approval by the author before it went to the editor. There may lie your answer to the absence of headed paper and signature on the memo - it may well be a draft copy in itself. I don't know, incidentally, whether an internal memo would have been produced on headed paper or not in this case, so that may be a moot point anyway.
The memo would've been the supporting document for the draft article - so much is obvioius - and was probably written after the draft article was complete - that's usually the way it goes. We have substituted email for internal paper memos these days, of course, but the principle remains the same.
In short, the documents demonstrate an unremarkable similarity to countless other office drafts produced at the time; and reflect contemporary office procedures pretty much as you'd expect.
Now, considering the question of forgery: for this to be viable, you would need either a single or multiple forger(s) producing the documents on different machines. You would also need to explain why said forger(s) went to the trouble of producing a draft containing numerous typos and amendments and which contained extensive typing notation for a secretary.
None of the above would be necessary for a forger in order to pass off a fake, so I think you'd be looking for a plausible explantion for these actions.
Hypothetically, if you wanted to see if Charles Sandell was the person who annotated the draft article, you could compare with his 1982 letter, I suppose.
On your specific concerns:
You view the discovery of the Crime Museum documents at the back of a filing cabinet as potentially suspicious. I think Adam Wood answered this one in post #613. Outside of the public face, which is the one you see, it isn't unusual to find misplaced, misfiled, and largely forgotten documents in paper archives. It isn't inherently suspicious as you seem to think.
You view the similarity of phrases in the draft article to phrases used by Jim Swanson in his correspondence as potentially suspicious. I think I've said this before, but the obvious solution to this is that Sandell used the same correspondence, or notes from the same, for reference when he wrote the draft article. Any factual errors present in the draft article could be explained in a similar way. It's called compound error.
On balance, and considering all the available facts, it seems more likely to me that the Crime Museum documents are exactly what they appear to be.
Leave a comment: