Private sale

[Chris]

All I want reasonably explained to me is why, in 1981, Charles Sandell of the News of the World, thought 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.

Presumably he felt it would have been repetitious, considering that he started his description of the marginalia with:
"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man.
He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

Whatever the reason, the article makes it clear that Kosminski was named by Swanson, so there can't be any question of that final sentence having been added later, as some used to suggest.

[Robert]

Sandell does not seem to have copied the marginalia verbatim, albeit he put it in quotes. Apart from the last line, he omitted that the suspect knew that he was identified (twice) and also changed "Jew" to "Jewish."

[Robert]

"This thread is starting to turn septic."

Oh - er - you noticed that, Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Repetitious?

In the absence of that final, all-clinching "Kosminski was the suspect" sentence all we are left with is somebody's word that Kosminski had been named in the marginalia by D.S.S.

If push came to shove, Sandell's typewritten article [vide Rip 128], which offers no proof, would be thrown out of a court.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Simon

I dare say quite a lot of NoTW articles would be thrown out of court ... and other places.

[Ally]

Hi Chris,

Repetitious?

In the absence of that final, all-clinching "Kosminski was the suspect" sentence all we are left with is somebody's word that Kosminski had been named in the marginalia by D.S.S.

If push came to shove, Sandell's typewritten article [vide Rip 128], which offers no proof, would be thrown out of a court.

Regards,

Simon

Er... so how precisely did Sandell come to know that Swanson named Kosminski then?? I mean, how did Sandell get the name Kosminski, if it wasn't there when he saw it?? He perfectly described the location where "K was the suspect" was located and stated Swanson had named him on that exact page, so what OTHER scenario explains that????

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

A fair question, seeing as Sandell didn't quote the marginalia verbatim.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Thank you, do you have a reasonable answer? Because, though I admit I have been a leading questioner of the Marginalia over the years, I can find no reasonable explanation to Sandell stating in his article that Swanson named Kosminski, and described the exact page and location where it appeared, except that the line was there in 1981.

This completely destroys in my opinion any speculation that it was written after reading Martin Fido's book and I cannot come up with a logical explanation that would satisfy. K was the suspect had to be there in 1981.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I'm amazed that the NOTW stumped up Ł750 [relatively big bucks in 1981] before deciding to spike the story, and then seven years' later wrote off the story and payment as a loss.

Had I been editor of the NOTW in 1987, I wouldn't have let the story go for free to the Daily Telegraph. With the sentence "Kosminski was the suspect" now in place, I would have capitalised on my initial investment and published a scoop.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Jenni
The Totty report is relevant for several reasons.
It is part of the ‘official’ narrative of the history of the Marginalia and its testing. This is unlike whatever Trevor may or may not have had tested – and frankly I have not bothered reading the exchanges relating to that matter.
Some people persist in claiming that the Marginalia has been tested by two different experts and cleared. But the Totty report is irrelevant for those purposes.
Totty was an expert, being the Assistant Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, so one might have expected him not to pronounce on the basis of photocopied documents and a partial sample of handwriting. But he did.
Was Totty incompetent? Or did some overeager ‘Ripperologists’ put too much store in his conclusions which included the moderating remark:
‘I should still be interested in seeing a full version of the footnotes however.’
Is history repeating itself?
Despite the manifest limitations of the Totty report it did not stop many ‘Ripperologists’ from claiming that it was effectively conclusive and using it to aggressively shout down anyone who criticised the validity of the marginalia.

I personally don’t feel victimised incidentally as I am the insensitive kind. But that isn’t to say that I don’t recognise aggression when I see it. Invariably it is mindless aggression.

From my time in the playground (many years ago it is true) I can also recognise the phenomenon when a group of kids pick on an unpopular kid who isn’t part of their in-crowd, and still other kids, keen to be associated with the in-crowd also join in to be part of the gang. This results in the creation of an ugly mob, most of whose members are individually snivelling wretches.
It is one of the least attractive features of human behaviour.

[Chris]

From my time in the playground (many years ago it is true) I can also recognise the phenomenon when a group of kids pick on an unpopular kid who isn’t part of their in-crowd, and still other kids, keen to be associated with the in-crowd also join in to be part of the gang. This results in the creation of an ugly mob, most of whose members are individually snivelling wretches.

Nice.

[Robert]

"With the sentence "Kosminski was the suspect" now in place"

What do you mean, Simon?

[Chris]

This completely destroys in my opinion any speculation that it was written after reading Martin Fido's book and I cannot come up with a logical explanation that would satisfy. K was the suspect had to be there in 1981.

And although the name Kosminski was known as early as the 1960s, in 1981 there was nothing to suggest he lived in his brother's house or had been committed to Colney Hatch.

It's not surprising that those trying that cast doubt on the genuineness of the marginalia never explain how they could actually have been faked.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

It wasn't there it 1981. It was miraculously there in 1987.

C'mon, you've been around the block a few times.

Work it out for yourself.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a broad-ranging question.

Why are you intent on believing that the story of Jack the Ripper is true?

Regards,

Simon