Private sale

[Robert]

Lechmere, from the point of view of the newspaper's readership, "Kosminski" was hardly better than unknown local. Not even a forename.

Try looking at it like this : suppose the NOTW serialised the story (I know they wouldn't, as it was only a Sunday paper - but just as a thought experiment). So we get to the final instalment, and the name of the Ripper is : Kosminski. Huh? Is that it? Bit of an anti-climax. No photo. No sketch. No background info.

I don't know why they rejected the story, but I don't think presence or absence of "Kosminski" had much to do with it. True, they had to have a name, but the name had to be more than just a name.

[Steve S]

Having kept up through 50-odd pages...I still don't have any good reason to suspect the SM was forged in the first place....ergo,I can't get excited over the rest.....Bored now..........

[Ally]

You know what really pisses me off about this little group of people? They bang on and on about politeness and non-abuse and all that crap, and because of their inherent inability to be forthright they broad-brush smear everyone involved and they do this without providing a single shred of evidence in support of these views.

Their intellectual dishonesty is staggering. Let's be real here. Let's break down the three things I have asked for:

Plausible suspect, plausible motive and plausible opportunity and the "reasons" (hah!) that Lechmere has provided for someone going to all the trouble to forge a 12 page article and memo and "secrete" it in the Crime Museum.

He has stated finances and pride of ancestry as a motive. This can only refer to Jim Swanson having forged the marginalia and Nevill Swanson then forging the supporting document. Well the second part is just laughable because people who forger forgeries to support their father's forgeries tend not to be the sort of people who have a vested interest in upholding the family name or pride of ancestry so we are down to financial motive. I mean wow, let's forge more stuff so our family name can continue to be smeared all over the internet, because I want to uphold the honor. After having been banged thoroughly about based on a one-line sentence that is suspected of being a forgery,let's forge 12 pages and see what happens! Then having forged all that crap, complete with NOTW headline and been offered some 20,000 pounds for it ... he doesn't sell it. Why? You think sitting on a whole hot pile of forgeries for profit he's going to wait around for years waiting for a better offer than 20 grand when most people are offering him 1 grand or a max of 5? Why didn't he take the money and run? And let's not forget he had to just sit there patiently "hoping" someone found his information that he'd worked so hard to forge. Unless of course we are accusing him of being in it with Keith SKinner.

Next motive was some drivel about "propping up a suspect one supports". As far as I am aware, Rob House is the only person who currently believes Kosminski was the suspect. He's an American. When exactly did he have time to secrete this into the crime museum (and then hope against hope someone would find it, somehow unless again, we are accusing Keith SKinner of being in on it!).


The vanity of being closely related to an important document. ... I just.. what??? What does that even mean? Does he actually think there is anyone out there going "ooh let me touch it my precious" over the freaking Marginalia to the extent that they would completely sacrifice all notion of right and wrong, cheat and forge just to provide provenance to a document they already consider to be genuine? So they think it's real, an important document, and they want to prop that up by cheating and forging supporting evidence. Because that makes sense to ANYONE with a shred of a moral compass. And who exactly is "close" to this document who would do it? The only two possibilities are Adam Wood who wrote the article or Keith Skinner who found the article.

So let's be real here. When Lechmere and Co. are saying that "someone" could have forged the document, these are the people he is talking about, even if he is too cowardly to mention them and just wants to smear them all broadly: Nevill Swanson, Rob House, Adam Wood and Keith Skinner.

Those are the only possible, possible forgers as laid out by him, so let's keep that in mind when we are reading his drivel.



Question: Does anyone know of any other articles that Sandell wrote? Aren't there linguistic computer programs that can tell you whether an author wrote something? I am pretty sure that's how they outed the person who wrote Primary Colors. It is incredibly hard to change how one writes (as proven by all the sock poppets who get outed after a short time on the forums) so it seems a simple matter for those who dispute that Sandell wrote the article to pony up, do a linguistic analysis and prove whether he did or did not write the article. Complete lay people can identify stylistic typings in language and identify authors, we do it every day on the forums when we know someone didn't write something themselves or are socks. So it shouldn't be too hard to do a computer analysis which removes the bias of having one of us do it.

[Lechmere]

Robert
If the loose ends I have pointed out are tidied up or if the Marginalia were to be sold through a reputable auction house in effect that felt I was being too pernickety about it all then we still won’t really know why the News of the World didn’t publish. It will just be one of those strange things that happen from time to time, and yes, maybe the reason for it would be that they were underwhelmed by it all.

Steve
It is proper that any ‘new’ document is checked in case it is a forgery, particularly of important information is contained in it and particularly if it is being sold for a reasonable sum of money.
I agree with those who say that the Kosminski reference doesn’t prove that Anderson or DS Swanson were sure it was Kosminski and doesn’t really take us any further in identifying the true culprit. Nevertheless it is an important resource as it gives a valuable insight into police thinking.

The trouble is that it isn’t really ‘new’ any more but unsatisfactorily (in my opinion) it hasn’t been properly verified. The first (Totty) test was botched for various reasons. The second (Davis) test was somewhat inconclusive, the third (Davis) test did not I believe take into consideration a variety of factors.

There are ‘odd’ circumstances such as:
• The different styles of handwriting and pencil used;
• The fact that Jim Swanson pasted a misleading letter over the true dedication;
• The drip feeding of material in support of the Marginalia;
• The loss of some documents in the collection (eg the Warren memorandum which I have barely mentioned);
• The unexplained discovery of the Crime Museum material;
• The failure of the News of the World to publish the story.

All of this can of course be explained in different innocent ways. But less innocent interpretations are also possible – hence the need in my opinion for another look.

As I said above, 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.
I don’t think that is too controversial a thing to suggest nor should suggesting it be regarded as being disrespectful to the Swanson family, or anyone else for that matter.

Although as we can see some people get very emotional about this.

[Jenni Shelden]

Lechmere;276202]Jenni
The memo speaks of the Yorkshire Ripper trial ambiguously – it could be a future or a past event.

Hi Ed,
I think the memo is pretty clearly speaking about it as a future event, look at the wording, which I quoted earlier, I don't find it at all ambigius, I'm afraid

"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"


Its clear the memo dated 15th April 1981 is referring to the future trial of the Yorkshire Ripper (he was arrested in Jnauary and tried in may, this fits this) as he used the phrase is bound, as in the future tense

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Although as we can see some people get very emotional about this.

Who, is is gettning so emotional that they are worthy of such a comment?

[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,
you make it sound as though these documents were just found lying randomly about. It read in the article as though they were amongst uncatalogued papers in the Crime Musuem (I may be wrong). Only a very specific group of people have access to this, I would think, mainly people who work there?

How do you think a member of the public smuggled these in, and what would be the benefit to them, they would not know if they would ever be discovered? When would they do this, is before NOTW went bust, that would be a big risk?

Basically, I don't think what you are saying really makes sense, unless I'm misreading it?

Thanks
Jenni

[Lechmere]

Jenni
If you look up a couple of posts you will see emotion.

Regarding the use of 'is bound' in the memo, if the event had just taken place, if Sutcliffe had just been found guilty and Sandell was speaking of it with respect to the impact of a Jack the Ripper story, then how would he phrase it?

Would he have said:
"The Yorkshire Ripper Trial was bound to stimulate interest in the original Jack the Ripper and it seems an appropriate time to run a story"

Not really.
Maybe he would have phrased it differently altogether.

[Ally]

The problem with the Lech is he doesn't understand what the "this" is that are engendering emotion. The "this" that "people" (gee he really is too cowardly to just name names isn't he) get emotional about are not the subject, but the weaselly, underhanded tactics being used to smear everyone in the area because certain people lack the sack to be forthright.

And those emotions are called: annoyance and disgust.

I will happily admit to feeling annoyed and disgusted by the tactics being used here and expressing such annoyance and disgust.

At least I am honest, unlike those "people" who couldn't make a forthright declaration if their lives depended on it and who don't have a passing acquaintance with personal integrity. It comes with having some basic comprehension of ethics and not thinking that the higher road is allowing trickery, theft and lies to go unchallenged and ignored.

Ethics. I have them. I also have the disgust and distaste for those who don't have a passing acquaintance with them that comes along with that.

My name is Ally Ryder and I am thoroughly disgusted by the tactics being utilized here.

[Brenda]

/

We really need the option to "like" posts on this site.

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I don’t think I have suggested how the documents were left at all.
We simply don’t know.
We haven’t been told the exact circumstances of the discovery of the material in the Crime Museum. I have raised this issue many times on this and the other forum.
Based on that, my assumption is that there is no ready explanation for their appearance.
We don’t know if they were buried deep somewhere that they were unlikely to ever be seen except by lucky chance, and it could be that they had been there for years.
They may have been left somewhat in plain view, and by implication have been only recently put there.

Perhaps there is an explanation that will clear this up. That is all I am asking for but some quarters this is met with fierce resistance.

In 25 years how many people had access to the Crime Museum? How many civilians? What was security like? Do you really know?
No one has said that it was such a secure location that only a handful of people could have left these documents there. We have not been given that explanation.

The only explanation so far offered is that its ‘donation’ may have resulted from a close journalist-police officer relationship of the kind exposed by the Leveson Enquiry. No one has put their hand up to handing it in.
If this is the case then it may suggest that there is a feeling that the documents had been in the Crime Museum undiscovered for some time. But maybe I am reading too much into that.
Either way it strongly suggests that it was put in the Crime Museum surreptitiously – not officially as part of a regular or normal donation.
This must have been done by human hand, by someone who gained access to the Crime Museum!

Whoever deposited it there was taking a risk of discovery – but guess what? Every time someone does something naughty they run the risk of discovery but people still do naughty things.
The reason someone would have done it was that they thought they would benefit from it in some manner – financial, though fame, through vanity, through mischief – there are many motivations. Someone may have been persuaded to put it there for overtly good reasons – as I suggested used as a ‘mule’.
There are many possibilities that really do not need to be listed.

The depositing of this material in such a manner does not necessarily suggest that it is faked. However it increases the overall ‘dodgyness’ of the whole situation.

I am asking for explanations. All I see is a desire to sweep this under a carpet.

[Hunter]

...My name is Ally Ryder and I am thoroughly disgusted by the tactics being utilized here.

My name is Cris Malone and I approve that message.

[Robert]

It is difficult to find references to Sandell online, except of course for the Ripper sites. There are a few mentions, but they don't tell us much.

I don't know if Sandell had any surviving family, but I would suggest that if a forger, in order to promote a family possession that had survived for decades, were to forge an article by a man who died comparatively recently, then he would be taking a grave risk that
1. The original unpublished article didn't turn up in NOTW records
2. Sandell's family didn't have a draft of the article too.

After all, if Swanson's annotations survived, and Macnaghten's draft memo survived, then why not Sandell's article?

PS I have just found an amazing quote from Sandell in which he debunks the whole theory. It reads : "Just as he was about to butcher the women, Kosminski made his excuses and left."

[Lechmere]

Robert

Many forgeries are found out by investigation. If none were investigated then few would have been found out. I could list numerous instances of things being forged and discovered - and evidently the forger took that risk, and lost!
That isn't an argument for the veracity of the Marginalia one way or another.
Look up Joyce Hatto in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto

I repeat for clarity.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I would just like to see all the loose ends tied up.

As someone one said:
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound.

[Robert]

Calling Adam : do you know if Charles Sandell married? I've found a possible widow, still alive, but won't provide the link here in case it's wrong. And even if it is correct, it wouldn't be fair to drag her in here. If you've already spoken to her, then disregard.