Private sale

[Chris]

However, for me, it points to the NoTW story being forged at the same time as the letter was glued in (so between visits by Begg and then Evans). The passage in the story about the book being signed by Anderson in 1905, is only an attempt to pass off the LSOMOL as being a personal gift from Anderson to DSS. So raising DSS's importance, and increasing the value of the book.

You're suggesting that the letter was glued into the book to give the impression that it was inscribed to Swanson by Anderson in 1905 - five years before it was published ??

[Monty]

The facts are there in my lengthy post they have not been manipulated so please refrain from making false accusations

As I said personal insults again so as to deflect away its pathetic

Not a personal insult Trevor, merely an ascertained fact to go along with your admittance.

Like stating grass is green.

Monty

[Lechmere]

What is the significance of the memo and accompanying unused News of the World article, both by Charles Sandell and found in the Scotland Yard Crime Museum on July 2011?

They are the best proof that the Marginalia included the details about Kosminski, including his name, in 1981, when they were written. In other words that the full marginalia was written before that date.

Alongside the handwriting analysis by Dr Davis, they were used in Adam Wood’s ‘Ripperologist’ article to prove that the Marginalia was genuine.

But whenever a document (A) is used to prove that another (B) is genuine –the first (A) must also be validated. Otherwise it is a pointless exercise.

The memo and unused article were accepted at face value. But were there any reasons for not accepting them at face value?

Some have objected that they are scruffy looking with corrections and crossings out.
This is one of the most naive suggestions I have seen made.
When documents are forged it is commonplace for them to be given the patina of age. Making it look like a rough and ready working document is one of the first and most basic tasks of a forger. It would be less suspicious if it was more pristine! And arguably if a document was presented to Scotland Yard – even unofficially - it would logically more likely be a good copy.

Some have argued that if the article and Marginalia (in whole or part) were forgeries then the forger would definitely have used the expression:
‘Kosminski was the suspect’
This being the key line. This proves nothing. As Simon Wood has pointed out, as it is the key line, one might expect that an experienced journalist with a sensationalist newspaper might also have been expected to use it. But ‘Charles Sandell’ didn’t, did he.
It could equally be argued that the forger was self-conscious about his forgery and felt inhibited about quoting it directly as he may have felt this would highlight his forgery.
One way or another this line of thinking doesn’t get us very far.

Some have argued that a forger wouldn’t have written a 12 page article. It is actually typed in double space so the article isn’t really ‘that’ long – but in any event this is hardly a valid reason for it not being a forgery. Actually it is no reason at all. If the faker thought it would be a good idea to fake the unpublished article as evidence that the Kosminski reference was there in 1981 then he would hardly do a two pager!

Is there any reason to be suspicious about this document?

The memo is one side of one page. It is not headed. Most large organisations use headed memo paper.
It is addressed to ‘News Editor’, rather than to, for example, 'Robert Warren, News Editor'.

Is the memo supposed to be related to the 12 page article? They were found together apparently.
Jim Swanson is supposed to have written to the News of the World on 28th March 1981. This was followed, according to the memo, by Charles Sandell visiting Jim twice. Sandell would have then researched and penned the 12 page article.
The memo is dated 15th April 1981. That was speedy work by Sandell.
Robert Warren wrote to Jim Swanson on 16th April 1981 to confirm the agreement with Charles Sandell and asking that Jim send one copy back. Until the News of the World had received that signed copy back, there would have been no agreement.
Logically the Sandell article would not have been written until after this. Otherwise he was potentially wasting his time. Of course he was wasting his time as the News of the World for no obvious reason and after spending Ł750 – a decent sum of money back then – neglected to use this scoop.

But why was the unused Sandell article deposited at the Crime Museum together with a unheaded memorandum that would have almost certainly been written a couple of weeks earlier than the article?

Charles Sandell wrote to Jim Swanson in April 1982 and apparently, while discussing DS Swanson, did not mention the all-important Kosminski suspect aspect.

Incidentally Charles Sandell lived in Redhill in Surrey, whereas Jim Swanson lived in Peaslake. For those unfamiliar with London’s stockbroker belt, this is also in Surrey, about 15 miles from Redhill.
I pointed out the seeming coincidence that Charles Sandell died on 19th August 1987, and that Jim Swanson approached the Telegraph with a view to providing them with the Marginalia story on 3rd October 1987. A few days earlier Jim Swanson had asked the News of the World to release him from their earlier agreement.
I wondered whether these two events could be linked. In other words did Jim Swanson hear that Charles Sandell had died and this, in conjunction with some stories in the Telegraph, prompted Jim Swanson to make the approach? As Sandell would not be there to say that he had never seen the name Kosminski mentioned in the Marginalia?
Adam Wood says that there was no obituary to Sandell in the News of the World. I am not sure if the lack of obituary extended to the Times and Telegraph?
Adam Wood certainly obtained biographical details about Sandell from somewhere – but I don’t know where.
In any event it is quite likely that a local Surrey newspaper (the Surrey Mirror?) mentioned Sandell’s death, or Jim Swanson could have heard about it on the localish grapevine.

If the Marginalia was a forgery what was the motive? The story was given to the Telegraph for nothing.
Despite that, there is potentially a clear financial motive. The News of the World paid Ł750 for an unused story. The Telegraph story effectively increased the value of the Marginalia. And of course it is now for sale.

But these things are seldom all about money.
Shakespeare knew this! See this specially edited version of Henry V, Act 4 Scene III...

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day:
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;

Some think that it is fundamentally implausible that the memo and unused article could be forged as they were found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
It was found in July 2011 (coincidentally the precise month that the News of the World went out of business – making establishing its provenance more problematical) by Keith Skinner while he was sorting through paperwork during a reorganisation of the Crime Museum.
No one knows how these documents got into the Crime Museum.
Adam Woods has said that it was found down the back of a filing cabinet – although he has also said this was more of a figure of speech than an exact account of their discovery.
It was also suggested (I think by Adam Wood) that they may have been deposited as a result of some sort of police-press relationship of the kind detailed by the Leveson Inquiry. This was an enquiry that amongst other things looked into inappropriate behaviour and corruption involving the press and the police.

That is all we have been told.

How many people have access to the Crime Museum since, say 1987?
Are all policemen honest? (What did happen to all those missing Ripper documents?)
Would it have been difficult to deposit, to secrete, these documents in the Crime Museum to be re-discovered at some future date?
Clearly someone secreted (or if you prefer deposited) them there and no one has owned up to it.
So it cannot have been that difficult.
Perhaps someone was asked to put them there thinking they were genuine and acted as a hapless ‘mule’!

If the memo and 12 pager were faked then who did it?
Jim Swanson died in December 2001, so rather obviously he could not be responsible for any forgery post-dating this. But if these documents were forged then we don’t know when it was done nor do we know when they were secreted in the Crime Museum.
It is not necessary to speculate as to names. There was a clear motive for doing it. It was clearly possible to do. Someone surreptitiously planted it in the Crime Museum – the only question being their motive for planting it.
That is all that is necessary to establish valid grounds for suspicion or at least scepticism.

The very fact that these documents turned up with no real explanation is in itself grounds for suspicion. Given that these documents are the best proof that the name Kosminski was present in the Marginalia in 1981, in the context of this story they are very important and significant.
That is the very obvious potential motive for these documents being forged.

Establishing the bona fides for the memo and the unused article would go a long way towards establishing the authenticity of the Marginalia – and increasing its value.

[Lechmere]

I should add that the unused article states:
‘renewed speculation as to the identity of the Victorian killer started this year after the conviction of the Yorkshire Ripper.’
The Yorkshire Ripper was convicted on 22nd May 1981, so logically the unused article must have been written after this date. This makes it a little stranger that the unused article was paired up with the 15th April memo.

[Ally]

The memo and unused article were accepted at face value. But were there any reasons for not accepting them at face value?

I have no idea. That's what I keep asking you repeatedly. So far, no answer.

Some have objected that they are scruffy looking with corrections and crossings out.
This is one of the most naive suggestions I have seen made.
When documents are forged it is commonplace for them to be given the patina of age. Making it look like a rough and ready working document is one of the first and most basic tasks of a forger. It would be less suspicious if it was more pristine! And arguably if a document was presented to Scotland Yard – even unofficially - it would logically more likely be a good copy.

Actually you are entirely wrong. The question has been asked: TO WHAT PURPOSE would someone go to all that trouble for in order to fake an article.

And still, no answer. You throw up a strawman and call it naive, but once again fail to address the substance which is WHO WOULD HAVE DONE IT AND WHY ????

Some have argued that if the article and Marginalia (in whole or part) were forgeries then the forger would definitely have used the expression:
‘Kosminski was the suspect’
This being the key line. This proves nothing. As Simon Wood has pointed out, as it is the key line, one might expect that an experienced journalist with a sensationalist newspaper might also have been expected to use it. But ‘Charles Sandell’ didn’t, did he.

You do realize that you STILL have not provided a single supporting piece of evidence for anything that calls it into question as being a fake right? Pointing to other people's arguments and saying they are stupid is NOT providing your own arguments to the contrary point of view.


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.

Some have argued that a forger wouldn’t have written a 12 page article. It is actually typed in double space so the article isn’t really ‘that’ long – but in any event this is hardly a valid reason for it not being a forgery. Actually it is no reason at all. If the faker thought it would be a good idea to fake the unpublished article as evidence that the Kosminski reference was there in 1981 then he would hardly do a two pager!

Actually once again, no one has argued a forger wouldn't do this. The question was WHO would go to all that trouble and FOR WHAT PURPOSE?


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.

Is there any reason to be suspicious about this document?

Apparently there isn't because once again:


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.


Seriously, you then go on for like 8 paragraphs without actually providing a single shred of argument to the claim the article was faked. So I just skip rebutting it, I am sure someone else can point out the blinding ridiculousness of your "what of the memo and the article". I plan to focus solely on the article and not be sidetracked into red herring speculations when


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.

But these things are seldom all about money.
Shakespeare knew this!

Ally knew this. Ally pointed it out in like 2009. But you are slowly but surely catching up to current events. (and yes I just referred to myself in the third-person because I am just that badass)

Oh and then there was some delightful Shakespeare that I believe was an attempt to misdirect the eye from the fact that:


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.

No one knows how these documents got into the Crime Museum.

And? What conclusion do you draw from this?

Would it have been difficult to deposit, to secrete, these documents in the Crime Museum to be re-discovered at some future date?

By whom and for what purpose? Eventually, I BELIEVE I will get an answer to this. I BELIEVE. (Starting to feel like Charlie Brown and that damn football).

Clearly someone secreted (or if you prefer deposited) them there and no one has owned up to it.
So it cannot have been that difficult.
Perhaps someone was asked to put them there thinking they were genuine and acted as a hapless ‘mule’!

This again presupposes they were fakes. Based on what evidence, because I don't know if I have been clear up until now:


You have still NOT provided a single fact, argument or reason for the contrary opinion or for the idea that the article is fake.

If the memo and 12 pager were faked then who did it?

Finally! Oh my god I feel an answer coming on ... I feel it... HERE WE GO .... ANSWERS!!! FACTS !! The EXCITEMENT!! I can't wait...

Jim Swanson died in December 2001, so rather obviously he could not be responsible for any forgery post-dating this.
But if these documents were forged then we don’t know when it was done nor do we know when they were secreted in the Crime Museum.

So you are claiming that Jim Swanson forged the article, forged the memo and somehow managed to bribe a guard into "secreting" the information into the Crime Museum... years before the book would ever go to the Crime Museum?? What kind of effed up plan was that??

It is not necessary to speculate as to names. There was a clear motive for doing it. It was clearly possible to do.

Actually yes you do need to name names because there is not a clear motive for doing it. What possible gain would Jim Swanson have had for forging and article that he then hid in the Crime Museum, that makes no freaking sense whatsoever!

Someone surreptitiously planted it in the Crime Museum – the only question being their motive for planting it.

You have not a single shred of evidence that it was "surreptitiously planted" in the Crime Museum and to claim it was is base.

That is all that is necessary to establish valid grounds for suspicion or at least scepticism.

Uh no. That is not all that is necessary to establish valid grounds. You have not tied a possible forger to a motive or an opportunity to have done so. You have ZERO valid grounds. In order for there to be "valid grounds" you require a plausible suspect, a plausible motive, and a plausible opportunity and time frame for it to occur.

You have not established A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE. The Jim Swanson timeline makes no sense whatsoever, and there is no motive for anyone else that has yet been established to have done so.

Plausible Suspect.
Plausible Motive.
Plausible Opportunity

Not a single one has been established.

[Rubyretro]

You're suggesting that the letter was glued into the book to give the impression that it was inscribed to Swanson by Anderson in 1905 - five years before it was published ??

Yes.
In the News of the World unpublished story (supposed to be from 1981) which turned up, Jim Swanson tells of finding the Anderson book containing the marginalia and states clearly that the book was published in 1905.

He then goes on to say " As my Grandfather worked under Sir Robert, and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy" .

Jim Swanson knew that the book was inscribed from 'Fred', and in 1987 he knew that the book was published in 1910.

So why does he infer that the book was inscribed by Anderson, and why does the NOTW article say that it was published in 1905 -the very date of that Anderson letter that he glued in ?

Could it be that the NOTW article was actually written after the 1987 letter,
and back dated ? Could it be that the article was written to support the glued in letter ?

[Jenni Shelden]

So, to be clear in my mind and in general Ruby, are you saying Jim was being less than honest in regards to some factors ? If so which?

[Rubyretro]

So, to be clear in my mind and in general Ruby, are you saying Jim was being less than honest in regards to some factors ? If so which?

Gluing a letter from Anderson over the inscription 'from Fred' and inferring that the book was a gift from Anderson to DSS ?

[Lechmere]

Errr… Ally
The motive for secreting a forged unused article and memo would have been to provide evidence that the Marginalia contained the information about Kosminski back in 1981.
Did you not follow that?

What plausible grounds do we have or did anyone have for a suspect, motive and opportunity to forge the Marginalia?
Yet it has been tested three times.
I am suggesting the memo and unused article should be subject to scrutiny. You are extremely resistant to this for some reason.
I haven't said they are proven fakes - I have said they should be properly scrutinised - whereas they have been accepted without question.

No one knows how the items got into the Crime Museum. This means they were not officially deposited there. This means there were surreptitiously planted there – what is your explanation? What word would you prefer to ‘surreptitiously’?
Someone had the opportunity to put them there unnoticed.
Didn’t they.

Epic fail.
Also epic fail to properly address a single issue I have raised over several posts covering reasons for suspicion about a variety of items.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi mate,
well to be fair, I don't think you answered Ally's question, nor did anyone, as to what the evidence was that it was forged?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ruby,
oh ok, that's all you meant
Jenni

[Ally]

Errr… Ally
The motive for secreting a forged unused article and memo would have been to provide evidence that the Marginalia contained the information about Kosminski back in 1981.
Did you not follow that?

To what benefit? Someone goes through the ordeal of creating this elaborate forgery and bribing/sneaking it into the Crime museum to prove it said Kos back in 1981. FOR WHAT BENEFIT??

Who benefits from that, ergo who would have done it. Jim Swanson is not a plausible suspect. And he is the only possible forger suspect discussed and named to date. So who are you claiming would create this elaborate forgery -- WHAT IS THE MOTIVE. Simply saying it establishes Kos was there in 81 is not a motive if there is no actual BENEFIT from doing it.

So what's the benefit that would cause someone to go through all this trouble??????

No one knows how the items got into the Crime Museum. This means they were not officially deposited there. This means there were surreptitiously planted there – what is your explanation? What word would you prefer to ‘surreptitiously’?

No it actually does not mean that. What it means is the documentation for receiving those has not been uncovered.

Someone had the opportunity to put them there unnoticed.
Didn’t they.

Prove it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At this point it is unknown how they got there. That does not mean that evidence might not be discovered that proves when they were received into the Crime Museum. That does not mean they were "surreptitiously" placed there. This is the Crime Museum, not the Louvre, and even in the Louvre not every piece of paperwork is accounted for.

Are you actually claiming that every single piece of paper in the crime museum has an impeccable paper trail and that there are no invoices for something like "Received ten boxes of files from MEPO regarding information on former detectives". Do you have evidence of this?

That every other piece of paper in the Crime Museum has an exact provenance?

That this sole document is somehow unusual in its lack of exact source?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Was there any evidence that the Marginalia was forged prior to it being tested?
So why am I asked if there was evidence that the Crime Museum material was forged?
It is a ludicrous question to ask - that is why it wasn't answered.

There are grounds for questioning those documents as they have been used to authenticate another valuable questioned document.
That’s the way it goes.
The inability and refusal to accept that is frankly remarkable.

Furthermore the nature of how the Crime Museum documents came to light should raise an eyebrow at least.
The fact that it doesn’t seem to with some people just illustrates that they are suspending their critical faculties.

And please note, I have gone through in considerable detail about problems with various supporting documents and I don’t think I have had a word of back addressing anything that I raised…
If you exclude Allys post which is the internet forum equivalent of trying to defeat or drown out a contrary argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and repeatedly shouting out ‘bollocks, bollocks bollocks’.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ed,
when you say
Someone had the opportunity to put them there unnoticed.
Didn’t they.

It sounds like you are thinking of a particular person?? Who?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
Was there any evidence that the Marginalia was forged prior to it being tested?
So why am I asked if there was evidence that the Crime Museum material was forged?
It is a ludicrous question to ask - that is why it wasn't answered.

There are grounds for questioning those documents as they have been used to authenticate another valuable questioned document.
That’s the way it goes.
The inability and refusal to accept that is frankly remarkable.

Furthermore the nature of how the Crime Museum documents came to light should raise an eyebrow at least.
The fact that it doesn’t seem to with some people just illustrates that they are suspending their critical faculties.

And please note, I have gone through in considerable detail about problems with various supporting documents and I don’t think I have had a word of back addressing anything that I raised…
If you exclude Allys post which is the internet forum equivalent of trying to defeat or drown out a contrary argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and repeatedly shouting out ‘bollocks, bollocks bollocks’.

Hi Ed,

With all due respect, you are not required to do anything - I just felt your post ended with the phrase epic fail was a bit much when considering you hadn't addressed the question.

Saying I don't know, why do I have to prove that, is at least acknowledging the question.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify

best wishes

Jenni