Private sale

[Chris]

Simon

Regardless of whether you think he should have explicitly quoted that sentence, it's clear from his article that it was present in 1981, isn't it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Me mad, upset, ticked off, having a dicky fit, throwing a wobbler?

Get over yourself, girl.

"Because boy oh howdy everyone in the world cares about this minute little bit of nonsense except our small band of madmen."

Not quite certain what you mean, but I do notice that Charles Nevin of the Daily Telegraph took care not to omit "Kosminski was the suspect."

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

And so what? Do you really think that all journalists are required to write the exact same thing, the exact same way?? Most reasoned people would consider the actual information to be the important bit, not the precise details of the wording.

Do you really think, in 1981 there were NOTW readers who were going to read that and go. Now wait, HOW EXACTLY did he write that? Did he write "Kosminsky was a polish jew immigrant and the suspect". "Kosminski was the suspect?"

No, no, I really REALLY need to know the exact wording of how he identified Kosminski. Because THAT, the precise exact wording is the important part, not that he you know, identifies him. It's really the EXACT WORDING that matters!!

[Chris]

The trouble is, Simon, you did once say "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 think that obliges you to give a clear explanation of why you are now refusing to accept that evidence, at the very least.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Happily, News of the World readers never had to make such an unenviable decision.

Sounder minds prevailed. The story was spiked.

Best all round, really.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

The trouble is, Simon, you did once say "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 think that obliges you to give a clear explanation of why you are now refusing to accept that evidence, at the very least.

Excellent point and question, Chris. I admire your digging through the archives.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Simon.
just so there is no misunderstanding, my observation was purely about how Sandell could know Kosminski was a Polish Jew and Swanson knew this even though Swanson had not written this.

Jenni

[Lechmere]

What evidence is there that the Marginalia was ‘complete’ prior to it being seen in 1987?

Bear in mind this question is asked with a view to making sure that certain parts – all or some of the shaky hand (non purplish) script - was not forged.
Bear in mind also that a half competent forger will be capable of also forging supporting documents.
If all the potentially forged documents – Marginal and supporting items – were put together then we would not be dealing with a quantity of material to rival War and Peace.

The likelihood of it being forged is a separate question – but is one that can only be assessed after considering the documents themselves first.

I will start with the letter from The Sunday Express that Adam Wood reproduced on here – for the first time I think. It is buried deep in this thread on post 354.
It is dated 9th April 1981 and says:

‘The documents that seem to establish the identity of Jack the Ripper sound most interesting. But I am sure you will understand that we should have to examine them and satisfy ourselves as to their authenticity and reliability before we take the matter further. Naturally, we would guarantee complete confidentiality and give an absolute assurance that none of the information would be used if we decided after all not to proceed.’

I don’t think a copy of Jim Swanson’s approach to the Sunday Express exists. However the Sunday Express’ response suggests that Jim Swanson had written to them in a similar vein to his approach to the News of the World in a letter dated 26th March 1981, which said:

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

I don’t think this letter has been reproduced anywhere, but a transcription appeared here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5899

It seems unlikely to me that the Sunday Express letter could be forged.
That would be a particularly brazen act. Although the author of the letter James Kinlay died in June 2010, it would be easy enough to establish its authenticity via the Express Group from Kinlay’s signature and the features of the headed paper.

If the Sunday Express letter is authentic does this prove that the Marginalia included the name Kosminski and the other shaky text in 1981?

On the face of it yes, as the letter includes this passage:
‘The documents that seem to establish the identity of Jack the Ripper sound most interesting.’
This strongly implies that Kinlay was responding to a claim by Jim Swanson to have a document that claimed to name the culprit – along the lines of the letter to the News of the World quoted above.

The Sunday Express letter was annotated by Jim Swanson with:
‘Wrote 23.IV.81. Too late – sold’.

On 16th April 1981 the News of the World had written (this letter is in Adam Wood’s 'Ripperologist' article) confirming an agreement to pay £750 for the material Jim Swanson had offered them but without mentioning in their letter that any suspect was named. We are told that Jim Swanson had asked for £1,000 and haggled to get an extra £250 offered if two stories were published.

It seems strange that having gone to the trouble of writing to two newspapers, that Jim Swanson should rapidly accept the News of the World offer without bothering to enquire what the Sunday Express would be willing to offer.

The question arises, were Jim Swanson’s initial letters to the News of the World and to the Sunday Express the same?
We only have a copy of Jim Swanson’s letter to the News of the World (see the extract above) but this would be very easy to forge.

It could be that the News of the World were offered the documents without the shaky text, whereas the Sunday Express were offered it with the shaky text. And that perhaps the shaky text had not even been written at that stage. No one still living had seen it at that point.
Was the Sunday Express letter an experiment to see what the varying levels of interest might be?
Or perhaps the intention all along was to release the Marginalia for the 100th anniversary, or for some other future sale and this was part of a paper trail to artificially help establish its provenance?

Or had the Marginalia already adulterated in some way by 1981?
There are suggestions that this would mean that only the name Kosminski could have been added at that stage as it was not known that Colney Hatch was linked to Kosminski until (I think) 1987.

Remember Kinlay’s letter contained the following sentence:
‘I am sure you will understand that we should have to examine them and satisfy ourselves as to their authenticity and reliability before we take the matter further.’

The News of the World didn’t seem to have these scruples.
Did this dissuade Jim Swanson from pursuing the matter with the Sunday Express?

In my opinion the Sunday Express letter is the best evidence so far presented to suggest that the Marginalia mentioned Kosminski’s name in 1981.
Without testing it (which can probably best be undertaken via the Express Group) of all the documents it seem to me to be the least likely to be forged.
Conversely Jim Swanson’s letter to the News of the World of 26th March 1981 would have been one of the easiest of all the supporting documents to forge.

There are two potential scenarios where the Sunday Express letter is genuine but the Marginalia is not in its entirety.
1) The approach to the Sunday Express was not genuine but designed to test the water and perhaps to provide a paper trail; or
2) Some aspect of the Marginalia was forged before the material was offered to the Sunday Express and because they indicated their intention to test it their interest was not pursued.

There are two other questionable supporting documents that are key to helping to establish the authenticity of the Marginalia – the 1923 letter and the unused News of the World article and memo found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.

[Ally]

So you explain it then Lechmere.

How precisely did Sandell's article locate the exact spot that the line appeared and state that Swanson said that the suspect was Kosminski if the line wasn't there.

Until someone can provide one single shred of logical rebuttal to that fact, then there is no other argument.

HOW did Sandell manage to point to the exact spot and the exact information unless the marginalia contained the information that Kosminski was the suspect?

You say the article is "questionable". What precisely about it is "questionable"?

[Lechmere]

The 1923 letter was written by DS Swanson to his grandson Donald. It seems to have been the primary resource used by Dr Davis to authenticate the shaky handwriting in his second report.

Although it seems to be a fairly inconsequential letter so far as its content goes, it must have been kept by Donald throughout his life.
I do not know anything about Donald Swanson except that he was Jim Swanson’s elder brother.

It might be thought that the letter somewhat too conveniently states:

I am sorry [for my rough] writing with pencil my hand shakes paralytically and causes me to stop.
and
I am sorry my hand begins to shake so that I have had to stop.
And some of it is written with a purple pencil.

I have no idea whether Donald Swanson is dead (I presume he has passed away) and I do not know if he had any children, or how the 1923 letter came to light.

Without any of this information it is impossible to judge whether or not doubts as to its authenticity are viable.
I originally assumed that this letter was part of the bundle of documents discovered in July 2011.
Perhaps it was?

I have already discussed the unused article but I will restate the issues in due course. Briefly if the unused article is genuine then I believe that the Kosminski line was there in 1981.

[Chris]

If all the potentially forged documents – Marginal and supporting items – were put together then we would not be dealing with a quantity of material to rival War and Peace.

The likelihood of it being forged is a separate question – but is one that can only be assessed after considering the documents themselves first.

I think most of us have already "assessed" this suggestion and dismissed it as mind-bogglingly unlikely.

It would be difficult enough to believe if there were any real reason to doubt the genuineness of the marginalia, but as far as I can see there is none.

I really wish I could understand why there is such a pressing need on the part of you and two or three others to disbelieve in the marginalia. Why is it so difficult to believe that Swanson would have made some cryptic notes about someone we know from an official record to have been a suspect anyway? The notes aren't even as definite about the suspect's guilt as Anderson was. Why should there be so much resistance to this particular document, with so little reason?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think most of us have already "assessed" this suggestion and dismissed it as mind-bogglingly unlikely.

It would be difficult enough to believe if there were any real reason to doubt the genuineness of the marginalia, but as far as I can see there is none.

I really wish I could understand why there is such a pressing need on the part of you and two or three others to disbelieve in the marginalia. Why is it so difficult to believe that Swanson would have made some cryptic notes about someone we know from an official record to have been a suspect anyway? The notes aren't even as definite about the suspect's guilt as Anderson was. Why should there be so much resistance to this particular document, with so little reason?

Chris why not look at it another way. Because it is clear that the handwriting tests for varying reasons are still inconclusive and not wholly to be relied on.

Lets look at the whole picture and background from the beginning because I feel that when you look at it this way it goes along way to answer the question is there something wrong with the marginalia?

1894 the first mention of the name Kosminski by MM as being a more likely suspect to have been the killer than Cutbush (emphasis on more likely) at this point is it right to suggest this man Kosminski was a viable suspect or simply a person of interest. I suggest the latter based on what is needed to place a suspect into a specific suspect category.
1. Person of interest
2. Likely suspect
3. Prime Suspect

Sometime thereafter in the Aberconway version MM exonerates Kosminski. So that should have been the end of suspect Kosminski whoever he was.

Between 1888-1908 Anderson was telling the world that the police had no clues as to the identity of the ripper.

1910 Anderson publishes his book with the contentious statement about a suspect who was identified etc. Did this take place or was it all made up.

Well when you look at the content it suggests that it was made up
1. He does not name the suspect.
2. He does not name the witness
3. He does not give any details of where this ID took place
4. We know there were no witnesses who saw the killer committing any
murders.
In the light of what he previously stated on many occasions "WARNING BELLS" should be sounding.

Now lets look at the marginalia

It could not have been written before 1910 and looking at it closely

1. All the way through until the last line there is no mention of the suspects
name yet continuous references throughout to the word suspect.
2. As in Andersons book no mention of the witness name
3. As in the Andersons book no specific details of where the ID took place.
4. Other parts of the marginalia do not fit with what I would see as police
protocol (no need to re argue these issues they have been done to death)

1. Taking a suspect to a witness for an ID parade and some distance.
2. Anderson in his book suggests a direct confrontation and ID which
would in my opinion would have jeopardized any prosecution.
3. Bring the suspect back to his brother house and simply dropping him
off. The Met were supposed to have carried this exercise out why
bring him back and allow another force to carry out observations on
suspect?
4. Why not involve the City Police in the ID parade after all they had
Lawende as a witness?

Then the last line "Kosminski was the suspect" to me that last line seems out on context with how the rest of the marginalia was written and therefore there must be a question mark as to how it came to be, and who did in fact write that and the rest of the marginalia and when.

The MM was out in the pubic domain in the 1960`s but as stated that only named Kosminski by surname. I find it strange that coincidentally the marginalia does the same. Why would Swanson not name the suspect in full or Anderson for that matter. Because in the MM it is stated that Kosminski had died around 1889, so no fears of libeling someone all those years later.

And as Abberline says by going public and telling the public that they had the killer and he could kill no more would have been kudos for them and Anderson seems to me to have been the type to thrive on that.

So what scenarios are we left to consider.

1. Someone forged all of the marginalia by building an uncheckable
story around Andersons entry
2. Someone only added the name Kosminski after 1981

As to Dr Davies report now eliminating Jim Swanson that is far from conclusive. As has been highlighted he used a photo copy for comparison purposes. That is not good practice. Further more handwriting experts usually require more than one sample for comparison purpose.

As I stated at the start of this post researchers should look at the overall picture when forming an opinion as to the authenticity of all or part of the marginalia.

Personally Chris I think you should look at this Independently and not in the biased way you have been looking at it due to you close relationship with the Swanson family.

[Jenni Shelden]

Trevor,
I ask you again ,what is this close relationship Chris had with the Swanson's ?
Jenni
Part explain it drop statin g it

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I ask you again ,what is this close relationship Chris had with the Swanson's ?
Jenni
Part explain it drop statin g it

Ask him ?

[Jenni Shelden]

He isn't claiming it. As you refuse you back it up I take it you just made it up to suit your purpose .As that seems to be the case with this, its possible I guess that its a habit you have ...