Private sale

[Chris]

If you claim to make no assumption Chris, why start your sentence with
"I assume...."? (re-printed, below)

Quite obviously I meant my statement about Trevor Marriott lying didn't depend on any assumptions.

But by all means stick to your mud-slinging. I'm afraid I've had it with your hypocrisy.

[Robert]

Edward Kinsila seems to have had a remarkable companion :

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=115664732

Re Fred, I had a look at Frederick Redfern born c1829, who was living a few doors from Swanson in 1901 and seems to have kept a lodging house at Hastings in 1891, but his 1911 handwriting didn't match Fred's.

[Lechmere]

Phil

As Adam pointed out (and this is from Adam’s Ripperologist article), Paul Begg sent photocopies of parts of the Marginalia to Dr Richard Totty, Assistant Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, along with photocopied samples of Swanson’s handwriting that are now with the Public Record Office (although initially Paul Begg sent a report that was not in Swanson’s hand!)
The photocopies that we have seen relating to this are of poor quality with the darkness enhanced to enable the handwriting to be visible.
Totty pronounced based on this.
Of course we now know that the photocopied sample did not show the two varieties of DS Swanson handwriting – shakey and non shakey.

Stewart Evans says that when he saw the marginalia for the first time in 2000:
‘I have to admit that the differences apparent in the marginalia/endpaper notes struck me rather forcibly and caused a little unease.’

One wonders why Paul Begg didn’t notice the differences in the handwriting back in 1988.

In 1991, in the first edition of the A-Z, Paul Begg (presumably) rather aggressively stated:
‘Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond peradventure, and the writing has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner.’

Of course in 1991 it could not be said that the Marginalia’s provenance had been established at all – if it is established, it will be based on the correspondence that did not come to light until 2011. Furthermore the Totty handwriting analysis was virtually valueless.

The aggressive defence of the Marginalia persists to this day.
I take it as an attempt to silence criticism, as are the irrelevant attacks on Trevor Mariott’s character. This isn’t about Trevor Mariott, it is about the Marginalia.
Actually the thread was about the method of sale of the Marginalia, although that does naturally lead us to whether it will ever be tested again.

[AdamNeilWood]

Very interesting Robert, thanks.

[Chris]

I take it as an attempt to silence criticism, as are the irrelevant attacks on Trevor Mariott’s character. This isn’t about Trevor Mariott, it is about the Marginalia.

How on earth can Trevor Marriott's lies about the examination by Diane Simpson be any less relevant than what the A to Z says about the examination by Dr Totty?

[Robert]

Adam, he's mentioned a couple of times in this book. It seems he was sued :

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BbqKqrylZT0C&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=kinsila+gaumont+flushing&source=bl&ots=sW5KijbGvD&sig=zBHXIvbSMOr8ohkMoz2cKfrUx6w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lKJFUsCaHe7Y0QWRzYCIAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kinsila%20gaumont%20flushing&f=false

[Phil Carter]

Jim Swanson never had contact with a document examiner from the Met. If you mean Dr Richard Totty, he was Assistant Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory.

The photocopies - no mention of them being 'poor' quality - were given to Totty by Paul Begg when he and Jim Swanson were working with Totty on a TV programme together.




The chain of events which led to the Swanson family making contact with the Crime Museum was outlined in my article:

On 24 April 2006 Keith Skinner was conducting research at the Metropolitan Police Historical Collection at Charlton when, in the absence of Maggie Bird, the Manager of the Collection, he answered a telephone call which by amazing coincidence was from Nevill Swanson. Nevill was attempting to find information on a gun, allegedly presented to Donald Sutherland Swanson in 1882, which was being advertised for sale on the Internet. They discussed Keith’s past association with the Swanson family, and during the course of the telephone call Keith suggested that The Lighter Side of My Official Life, along with other Swanson material, be looked after by the Metropolitan Police Historical Collection.

Nevill wrote on 3 May 2006 to say that after discussion with the rest of the Swanson family it had been agreed that it would be appropriate to loan The Lighter Side of My Official Life on an open-ended basis to the Crime Museum, as per Keith’s later suggestion. In the meantime, the Museum’s Curator Alan McCormick had expressed his keenness to tie in the presentation of the book with the relaunch of the Museum. This took place on 13 July 2006, and was attended by several journalists, who mistakenly thought that the Marginalia represented new evidence. As a result, as the only Ripper expert in attendance Keith found himself answering questions which had been discussed some 19 years previously, and was quoted in the following day’s newspapers concluding: “The Swanson Marginalia produces as many questions as it does answers.”

Keith recalls:

At that time I was helping Alan McCormick to refurbish the Crime Museum and it subsequently occurred to me that Lighter Side might sit neatly as a Ripper exhibit in the Crime Museum, there being absolutely nothing else on display! Alan agreed. I didn’t even know it was going to be used as a vehicle to relaunch the Crime Museum. I knew there was going to be a little informal ceremony where the Swanson family officially handed over the book to the Crime Museum as custodians on a loan basis, but I had absolutely no idea that this was to coincide with the relaunch and was staggered when I arrived at Scotland Yard to see it besieged by the press and media!

No conspiracy, no pushing of the Marginalia by any Ripperologist... it was the Crime Museum's then Curator, Alan McCormick, who was keen to tie in the loan with the Museum's relaunch.

Hello Adam,

Thanks for the reply.

You really do seem to have a problem. NOBODY... repeat NOBODY mentioned or even hinted at the word CONSPIRACY. Your imagination really is leaping in giant strides. And we who doubt things get accused of fertile imaginations?

All I asked were two questions, and saw a logical scenario as I read it. I was right, on one of them with that scenario, it seems.

So it seems, to these eyes at least, and it is only my personal opinion...your presentation and involvement with the Swanson Marginalia is reaching boundaries where neutral opinion reporting facts are being covered in personal swipes and jump-to-the-defence of "anything Swanson" attitudes.
That is bias. Like it or not...if you choose to represent a presentation of something people have the right to question it. As I have previously with the elderly lady Swanson relative's comments.. which earned me a clip arounf the ear because you didn't like them either and brought up "perhaps I shouldn't bother to look into the presentation of... either!" comment... which really was very strange.

Whether you like it or not Adam. People will doubt. People will ask and doubt. People will fail to recall every bit ever written about the subject. People do not have total recall of every event. Neither do they have total recall of every line that you ever printed on the Swanson subject, which hotel he stayed at, which train he caught to London and which type of bread he brought at the local bakery when shopping either!

So just jump off the "let's hit out at this one" bandwagon a bit. It doesn't suit you and shows me that your professional judgement, however fed up you are or not with the naysayers re. the Marginal et al, has slipped from it's highest standards. Thank you. No nastiness intended. Just an honest observation. "All things Swanson" and "All things Marginalia" isn't always acceptably right. I am sorry. If you think it is, then you are as blinkered as any person with total belief in The Diary, Prince Eddy, Abberline being a drunk or drug addict or anything else. I vcan name many many things about the Marginalia that if it had been presented by anyone BUT someone connected to the Police Force at the time of the murders..like Cornwell or "The Diaryist", it would have been thrown out as complete made up rubbish without ANY solid evidence to back it up one iota.

Because that is where the Marginalia falls down. It proves absolutely nothing.
Like it or not.

Re. Paul Begg.

Mr. Begg is at present ill, I understand. Out of respect for the man and his situation, it makes unfavourable observation difficult to say. So respectfully, this is meant as nicely as I can write it.

A noted historian, author and Ripper expert hands a photo copy of "evidence" to the "Assistant Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory." and from that expects that the answers that are received will be good enough to be accepted? Come on Adam.. this really is silly.

We are talking of a piece of POTENTIAL evidence at the time that would blow the lid offf the Ripper story.... and a photo copy is going to suffice?

I am far from being an expert in the field Adam... nothing like it... but the single most obvious point straight away is.. if you want a VALUED OPINION on an item, and want it examined.. you don't hand the expert a photo copy for heaven's sake.. you hand over the original! That ensures things being done properly! Anything else makes the item itself a laughing stock. Whetehr it is genuine or not!

Why didn't Totty get the original Adam? Didn't Jim Swanson want to part with it? And what, if I may make so bold as to ask, was ANY expert thinking when they prersumed that a photo copy of documentary evidence would suffice for a critical examination as to that document's authenticity?????
And I mean this in total respect to Paul Begg and his health issues at present. Should he be reading this, be assured of this Paul.

Trevor is correct. Had this been done properly in the first place, MANY of the problems that have evolved over 25 years would never have occured. It is only a year ago or so that you chased down the background to the Marginalia and printed the story. before that, only a few, for some unknown reason, knew anything about it. 24 years Adam...for the world in general to be told.

It is no wonder people accuse of groupings having some sort of special self regard in this field. It is no wonder people point fingers of doubt. Everything has to be so hush hush softly softly. No wonder people are suspicious Adam.

It is human nature for heaven's sake! If you don't accept that...how in heaven's name can you expect others to expect that the degree of hush hush softly softly is to be acceptable?

There is something wrong with the Marginalia. Ally said it. Now go argue like crazy with her too. Tell her she is conspiratorial. Jump down her throat. Attack her comments.. you'll find the thread posted within this thread.

And an observation. If you are going to be "spokesperson" for all things Swanson and Marginalia, based on the TREMENDOUS work, time, effort, skill, and patience used and shown in your presentation.. be prepared to believe, however hard you have worked, however honestly you have done it, that the Marginalia's past, the Marginalia's factual details etc doesn't hold good for defending it at all costs. There isn't a scrap of proof in it. Just like every other thing in this genre pointing to a named suspect.

Until you or anyone else can come up with THAT.... Swanson's scribbling in the margin of Anderson's book MUST be taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

And any more "annotations" from the same source, in the same manner, will cause the pot to boil further, not calm it down. Simply because of the last 24 years of UNCERTAINTY over the Marginalia and it's presentation itself. It isn't and wasn't and will never be an official Police document on the Case. Neither will more private annotations made on scraps of paper or various books.

One last thing.

You kindly told us who marked the book with red ink and who advised it to be done.

Over on JTR Forums, when I asked about this subject, and here, I was told directly by Mr Begg, when I asked if anyone knew who it was, that "he would find out".

Now compare that answer with your own comments about the story of who wrote the red lines in......

I conversed with Stewart Evans and asked him about it when the lines were first noticed...as this was supposed to be an official historical document in the subject. I was stunned that this had been allowed to happen.

This is my last posting on this thread. I decline to participate further. There are very clear agendas here that have nothing to do with the intention of the thread and some of them are frankly, appalling, imo. My apologies.

I will retire to other things and not waste more time TRYING to be open minded and fair. It gets jumped on and labelled whenever anyone feels the need to jump to the defence of all things Swanson, or all things Marginalia.

I really feel very sorry for the Swanson family. This should never, ever, have been allowed to develop from day one... photo copy indeed....



Phil


Edit to add...

Chris,

But by all means stick to your mud-slinging. I'm afraid I've had it with your hypocrisy.

No, it wasn't mud slinging..wrong there..wrong interpretation....and no....I wont start a war of words with you either... your personal believes and observations about and upon my character (a person you have never met, it is noted, with alacrity) are out of bounds. Try writing comments that dont include a personal swipe at someone's character. Trevor got a mouthful of this (imo) vile behaviour...and it went on and on and on in post after post after post. Whether he responded in kind or not Chris, such behaviour is deplorable, imho. It won't work with me Chris. Because you won't get the satisfaction of a return, likewise comment... you are wasting your time.

[Chris]

Phil

So Trevor Marriott is off-topic, but Paul Begg is fair game?

[Phil Carter]

The aggressive defence of the Marginalia persists to this day.
I take it as an attempt to silence criticism, as are the irrelevant attacks on Trevor Mariott’s character. This isn’t about Trevor Mariott, it is about the Marginalia.
Actually the thread was about the method of sale of the Marginalia, although that does naturally lead us to whether it will ever be tested again.

Hello Lechmere,

Amen to this.

Amen indeed.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil

So Trevor Marriott is off-topic, but Paul Begg is fair game?

Chris,

I dont think, looking back at your record of personal, terrible (my opinion entirely) accusations against Trevor, you can possibly start a comparison with what I RESPECTFULLY wrote about Paul Begg. Don't try it Chris.

You are way below the line here. And I am not biting, as i said. More such comment will only reflect upon your INTENT..... which is very very clear.

Now... dinner. Adios.



Phil

[Chris]

I dont think, looking back at your record of personal, terrible (my opinion entirely) accusations against Trevor ...

What on earth are you talking about?

[John Bennett]

Chris,

I dont think, looking back at your record of personal, terrible (my opinion entirely) accusations against Trevor, you can possibly start a comparison with what I RESPECTFULLY wrote about Paul Begg. Don't try it Chris.

Respectfully? If you were going to be in any way respectful, you wouldn't have commented on how ill Paul was and then decided to go for it anyway.

I don't think Paul is in a position to stand up for himself here as he is still undergoing a lot of treatment. Maybe you don't realise that?

This is not good.

[AdamNeilWood]

So it seems, to these eyes at least, and it is only my personal opinion...your presentation and involvement with the Swanson Marginalia is reaching boundaries where neutral opinion reporting facts are being covered in personal swipes and jump-to-the-defence of "anything Swanson" attitudes.
That is bias. Like it or not...if you choose to represent a presentation of something people have the right to question it. As I have previously with the elderly lady Swanson relative's comments.. which earned me a clip arounf the ear because you didn't like them either and brought up "perhaps I shouldn't bother to look into the presentation of... either!" comment... which really was very strange.

Whether you like it or not Adam. People will doubt. People will ask and doubt. People will fail to recall every bit ever written about the subject. People do not have total recall of every event. Neither do they have total recall of every line that you ever printed on the Swanson subject, which hotel he stayed at, which train he caught to London and which type of bread he brought at the local bakery when shopping either!

So just jump off the "let's hit out at this one" bandwagon a bit. It doesn't suit you and shows me that your professional judgement, however fed up you are or not with the naysayers re. the Marginal et al, has slipped from it's highest standards. Thank you. No nastiness intended. Just an honest observation. "All things Swanson" and "All things Marginalia" isn't always acceptably right. I am sorry. If you think it is, then you are as blinkered as any person with total belief in The Diary, Prince Eddy, Abberline being a drunk or drug addict or anything else. I vcan name many many things about the Marginalia that if it had been presented by anyone BUT someone connected to the Police Force at the time of the murders..like Cornwell or "The Diaryist", it would have been thrown out as complete made up rubbish without ANY solid evidence to back it up one iota.

Phil,

Where have I jumped down anyone's throat or "argued like crazy"?

Lechmere in particular has asked questions or made comments, and if I have been able to answer because of my work with the Swanson family I have. I haven't attacked him, or shouted for no reason - I've presented evidence which is appropriate to the debate.

You asked if anyone knew who put the Swansons in touch with the Crime Museum - I answered by repeating the chain of events as it appeared in my article. I could have just posted "read my article", if I were being as irritable as you suggest.

If you think my posting scans of letters or otherwise posting details of certain events means I'm biased, there's not much point me continuing to do so. I have tried to give answers to questions where I know the answer, or share documents which might prove a certain point of debate one way or another.

Just one last thing - you seem to think that my 'defending' the Marginalia at all costs means I believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. It doesn't. What I am doing is trying to get to the truth about the Marginalia's provenance - hence my article - and then to research what Swanson's annotations mean. But even if I were to discover conclusive proof of everything in the Marginalia happening as Swanson said, it doesn't mean I believe Kosminski was the Ripper. I am doing this with an open mind, as hard as that might be for you to believe.

Now, like you I have better things to be doing.

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear everyone,

First things first, I think anyone who wants to start throwing around accusations of aggressive behaviour needs to look back over this thread and ask themselves , who is being aggressive, if anyone? I think it is fair to say if we were then to collectively rank the people who have posted more than once on the thread in order of their perceived ‘aggressiveness’ then Adam Wood would not be at the top of that list, he would be near to, if not at the bottom of the list.


To accuse others of being aggressive or playing unfairly is to in essence cast oneself in the role of victim, but this is a discussion thread about the sale of a book a police officer wrote.

Trevor Marriott has said publically that he had done tests that proved conclusively that DSS did not write the marginalia, he was questioned about this when he made these claims, he would not reveal who had tested it. He finally revealed this information in his book, and it turned out that the person who he had so publically claimed had convinced him/proved the marginalia to be a forgery was a graphologist, not a document examiner, and that to her great credit, she had not claimed to be, stating on her website that she was not able to do such examinations. She had examined photocopies/or some form of copy. Yet, we had to all put up with months of tactics and insinuations from Trevor Marriott as to whether he, who then could not be seen of as being impartial because he had previously been banned from Casebook for slandering Nevil Swanson, had not been released the documents to from the Swansons to have his expert, whom he would reveal nothing about, examine the document. We now can all see, and agree that Dr Diane Simpson, as lovely as she seems from her website, was not an expert in document examination and would have been unable to help. Releasing time and resources to her would have been futile. Equally, when Trevor publically proclaimed that he had proof the marginalia was false, he did not have any such proof. As an aside, I understand no report on the examination Dr Simpson gave, however out of her remit this was, is in the book that Trevor recently published.

Dr Totty’s report had some issues such as the photocopying and no one is relying on the information he gave to make any claim about the marginalia these days. The tests by Dr Davies were done on the original document and gave the conclusion the text was written by DSS. Bringing up Totty, whilst interesting, is not relevant to this key point, and certainly no one is relying on it.

Someone mentioned somewhere something Stewart Evans said as to be about the handwriting being shaky and in other places not shaky, I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that when he was talking about difference he was doing so in regards to the pencils, one of which had a purplish tinge. I hope I am not putting words into his mouth.

I don’t see what help referring to another thread, which I think was going on before Dr Davies reports were made public, is to any of this. We are all adult enough, surely, to present our arguments on the matters in hand.

To Chris, We all know Paul Begg is ill and not on Casebook at the moment, unable to defend himself, whereas Trevor Marriott planted himself into the thread and was happy to engage, maybe where that’s where the possible difference lies?
Best wishes
Jenni

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This thread is starting to turn septic.

All I want reasonably explained to me is why, in 1981, Charles Sandell of the News of the World thought it fit to exclude from his typewritten article [vide Rip 128] the last line of the Swanson endpaper notation—

"Kosminski was the suspect."

And then I'll be a happy bunny.

Regards,

Simon