Private sale

[Ally]

Furthermore the nature of how the Crime Museum documents came to light should raise an eyebrow at least.

The nature of HOW the crime museum documents came to light should raise eyebrows? You mean a researcher with an impeccable background discovering them is some how .. eyebrow raising? Do explain how precisely Keith Skinner finding them somehow provides a dubious history. I am sure we are fascinated to hear your rationale behind this.

The fact that it doesn’t seem to with some people just illustrates that they are suspending their critical faculties.

Oh the irony... By the way, is this your example of non-insulting elevated discourse and non abusive dialogue that you so robustly champion?

[jmenges]

After this wraps up can we be treated to a discussion about the Littlechild letter also being forged? Nothing is real. Everything permitted.

Thanks

JM

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ed,
just trying to understand the grounds for questioning the NoW docs you mentioned. Would I be right in thinking, from the posts you've made, that you see the grounds as,
they appeared after the NoW was closed down?
they appeared after Charles Sandell was dead?
the Rip article stated no one knew where they had come from or some phrase to this affect?

Jenni

[Lechmere]

Oh dear Ally
The benefit would have been to prove the authenticity of the Marginalia back to 1981, and most people, think that if it is authenticated back to 1981 then it is fully authenticated.

The potential gain is both financial and the lustre of being descended from a famous ancestor. Or being a proponent of a theory that established whodunit – or that someone thinks establishes whodunit. Or the vanity of being closely related to a key document. There are many potential motives. Many potential culprits.

Next I suppose you are going to ask me to put ‘ze names on ze liszt’.
Aren’t you? That’s how it usually goes when the argument is lost.
Well if you do I won’t oblige – sorry.

If it is a forgery it isn’t an elaborate forgery.

I don’t suppose it was that difficult to secrete the document in the Crime Museum.
But according to you it wasn’t secreted – it’s just that the document for receiving it hasn’t been found.
Is that what you’ve been told or did you just make that up?

Yes the Crime Museum isn’t the Louvre – it is small with a limited number of exhibits. I would expect Keith Skinner to know if a document of that nature had been deposited there. It is clear from Adam Wood’s ‘Ripperologist’ article that Keith Skinner was in the dark.
Usually Museums do have a record of how documents and exhibits came into their possession.
I have asked several times for an explanation and the ones I gave (referring to the Leveson Enquiry and the back of the filing cabinet) are the responses I have been given.

[Ally]

Oh dear Ally
The benefit would have been to prove the authenticity of the Marginalia back to 1981, and most people, think that if it is authenticated back to 1981 then it is fully authenticated.

WHAT. BENEFIT. DOES. THAT. PROVIDE. Who benefits? What is the actual benefit to authenticating the marginalia that would make someone go to all this trouble. This is not a HARD question Lechmere and your inability to answer it is very telling.

What possible benefit to proving the marginalia authentic would make the effort worth it? Who would benefit from doing this forgery?

The potential gain is both financial and the lustre of being descended from a famous ancestor. Or being a proponent of a theory that established whodunit – or that someone thinks establishes whodunit. Or the vanity of being closely related to a key document.

So as Jim Swanson is pretty much ruled out from doing this, are you claiming Nevill Swanson did this forgery? The proponent of a theory is worth this elaborate forgery-- some random author who believe in Kozminski-- which means only Rob House!? You think everyone is as base and dirty and unethical as your mate?

There are many potential motives. Many potential culprits.

I'd settle for you being able to name ONE.

Next I suppose you are going to ask me to put ‘ze names on ze liszt’.
Aren’t you? That’s how it usually goes when the argument is lost.
Well if you do I won’t oblige – sorry.

Of course you won't. That's usually how it goes when people have no actual answer.

I don’t suppose it was that difficult to secrete the document in the Crime Museum.
But according to you it wasn’t secreted – it’s just that the document for receiving it hasn’t been found.
Is that what you’ve been told or did you just make that up?

You really are getting pathetic and desperate now aren't you?

Yes the Crime Museum isn’t the Louvre – it is small with a limited number of exhibits. I would expect Keith Skinner to know if a document of that nature had been deposited there. It is clear from Adam Wood’s ‘Ripperologist’ article that Keith Skinner was in the dark.

Really? And why precisely would Keith Skinner know if a document of that nature had been deposited there. Do you actually think the Crime Museum calls up Keith Skinner and informs him of every box of papers they receives and itemizes the contents for his pleasure?

Seriously, you are so very reaching now.

Usually Museums do have a record of how documents and exhibits came into their possession.

Yes they do. And there is nothing to say that the document in question wasn't entered into a box under "File box filled with crime memorabilia from journalism sources" or some other bit of random entry that would mean nothing to anyone.

Not every single piece of paper has been catalogued in the crime museum.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
No I’m not thinking of a particular suspect for ‘planting’ those documents.

I used the expression ‘epic fail’ as Ally ‘epically failed’ to raise a single issue of consequence, beyond a nonsensical demand that I prove evidence that those documents had been forged. That has never been my aim, which should have been blatantly obvious.

The primary grounds for questioning the News of the World documents is that they turned up at the blue many years after they were supposedly written with no explanation as to how they got there, after the author had died and the organisation they relate to had closed down, and they were the used to help authenticate some other valuable documents.
It’s a no brainer.

Ally
Clearly I was not casting aspersions on Keith Skinner – it is somewhat mendacious of you to try and suggest I was.
Clearly the nature of how these documents came to light was a reference to their unexplained appearance at the Crime Museum.

I don’t think that suggesting that some people are suspending their critical faculties counts as insulting or abusive – particularly compared to the standard fare on this and other forums…

[Jenni Shelden]

At what point was the fat the News of the World and Express had been approached in 1981 known?

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;276192]

Ally

Clearly I was not casting aspersions on Keith Skinner – it is somewhat mendacious of you to try and suggest I was.
Clearly the nature of how these documents came to light was a reference to their unexplained appearance at the Crime Museum.

There is no clearly about it. Your words were 'how they came to light' is what cast doubt on them, they came to light when Keith Skinner discovered them. If you don't want people to misinterpret what you say, quit dancing around and learn to speak plainly without all the shucking and jiving to obscure your meaning.

I don’t think that suggesting that some people are suspending their critical faculties counts as insulting or abusive – particularly compared to the standard fare on this and other forums…

Of course you don't. And I don't think calling an actual proven plagiarist a plagiarist is abusive or insulting. It's a statement of fact. But I do find it interesting that you implying we're illogical and naive and dishonest is just fine and dandy. Again, massively interesting double standard you have going there.

[Lechmere]

Ally
You don’t seem to realise that I have answered your question as to who benefits many times.
Thank you for conforming to stereotype and demanding a list of names.
I didn’t think I’d be disappointed.

When Dr Davis tested the marginalia was he effectively accusing Jim Swanson?
Not really. It goes with the territory. It’s called being rigorous.
I understand you have some sort of emotional commitment here but really, you must try to divorce that from your thinking.

Who is my ‘mate’ by the way?

After your countless demands for details about what should be questioned and why, I am a little disappointed that all I get is an emotional stream consciousness.

[Jenni Shelden]

I don’t suppose it was that difficult to secrete the document in the Crime Museum.

Hi Ed,
I don't know mate, its not an open access archive is it?

Jenni

[Lechmere]

Jenni
Charles Nevin – the Telegraph journalist – was told about the approach to the News of the World in 1987.
The Express document came to light I think in July 2011.

True the Crime Museum wasn't open access but over the years plenty of people will have been through it - so many I guess we will never know who put those documents there as by now they would surely have put their hand up to it.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;276195]Ally

You don’t seem to realise that I have answered your question as to who benefits many times.

No you haven't.

Thank you for conforming to stereotype and demanding a list of names.
I didn’t think I’d be disappointed.

Oh more personal abuse from the man who professes himself above all that. Do tell, what stereotype do I conform to precisely? Those who don't accept waffling bullshit and tap-dancing as actual debate? Because you are right, I absolutely match that one.

When Dr Davis tested the marginalia was he effectively accusing Jim Swanson?

I frankly don't give a rat's ass what Dr. Davis said. As I have already said several times and in several ways, handwriting analysis is junk science and I place no weight whatsoever on Davis' opinion.

Not really. It goes with the territory. It’s called being rigorous.

Oh that's hilarious.

After your countless demands for details about what should be questioned and why, I am a little disappointed that all I get is an emotional stream consciousness.

All you GET is emotional stream *of* consciousness? Seriously have you READ your posts? They are largely incoherent, rambling, unfocused and do not in any shape or form answer a single direct question, directly.

You are that person who perceives all their own flaws in others aren't you?

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
Charles Nevin – the Telegraph journalist – was told about the approach to the News of the World in 1987.
The Express document came to light I think in July 2011.

True the Crime Museum wasn't open access but over the years plenty of people will have been through it - so many I guess we will never know who put those documents there as by now they would surely have put their hand up to it.

Hi Ed,
thanks, I'm desperately reading through this article again, but this thread is so fast moving!

If the News of the World was known about in 1987, then I don't understand the problem with some of these documents coming to light in 2011 after it went out of business, even Rupert Murdoch couldnt have forseen that until a few weeks before hand.
?
Or I'm perhaps missing something as its now 12.30pm?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

In regards the Yorkshire Ripper thing, the doc from Sandell states
"The Yorkshire Ripper Trial is bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story"

someone mentioned that this doc is dated 15th April and the trial wasnt until May. This is not a problem, look at what Sandell is saying that the Yorkshire Ripper Trial will generate interest and that would be an appropriate time to run a story.

Peter Sutcliffe was arrested in January 1981 and charged on the 5th, in early 1981, his trial was indeed upcoming.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
The memo speaks of the Yorkshire Ripper trial ambiguously – it could be a future or a past event.
The unused article mentions it as a past event.
That is my interpretation anyway.

Regarding the 1987 date and the News of the World – I think Charles Nevin was only shown the letter from the News of the World that released Jim Swanson from their 1981 agreement. This letter is reproduced in Adam Wood’s article and is very brief. It goes no way towards establishing the content of the Marginalia in 1981.
I would not deny that there was some sort of agreement between Jim Swanson and the News of the World in 1981, and that he received a payment of £750. The possible suggestion is that the News of the World didn’t publish because the story wasn’t good enough – i.e. there was no suspect named. That would mean that either the Kosminski bit or all the shaky text was added later.

All I am seeking to demonstrate is that there is still an element of doubt and that before the documents are beyond reach – in private hands through a possible private sale – that they are tested again with as many loose ends as possible tied up.

Ally
Please accept my apologies for missing the word ‘of’.
I’m sure you understood what I said though.
In fact I sense you understand exactly what I meant in all my rambling responses.