Private sale

[Lechmere]

Ah Rob House
We have been told – and no one has contradicted the ballsy, fearless, never to be suspended Ally – that you are the only person in the whole wide world who thinks that Kosminski was the Ripper.
So that must be true! Surely?
And now we find you leaping to the defence of the Marginalia – that self-same Marginalia that names Kosminski as the suspect!
By what method are you defending the Marginalia? Have you answered any of the points I made in several lengthy posts? Have you provided irrefutable proof that the Marginalia is genuine?
No you seem to think that because I favour another suspect then that is my only motivation – well as I said I could turn that around on you. But it is no argument so I wouldn’t use it.

Actually I think Kosminski is one of the more plausible suspects but if anything the Marginalia detracts from his likelihood due to the issues contained within it.
For me the Marginalia (if genuine) is interesting as it illustrates the muddle and confusion that resulted at the very centre of the investigation almost certainly as a result of information overload and relying on third hand accounts.

Observer
If you read what I have said about those documents, it is that they have not been tested or put under any sort of examination – so they could be forged. I have never said they definitely are forged.
They could all prove to be genuine. I would have no problem if they are all proved genuine.

I have suggested that proving they are genuine is one way of proving that the Marginalia is genuine.
It never ceases to amaze me how the power of suggestion works.
People read into things what they want to believe. Their own prejudices take over.
That is why eye-witness statements are so notoriously unreliable.

[lynn cates]

Mustn't forget . . .

Hello Ally.

"With Rob House believing he was the Ripper and nobody else agreeing with him."

What of Jeff Leahy?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Rob (Clack)
I shall try harder.

But if I am ever wrong about something and it is shown, I own up.
And if I discover something that proves me wrong then I share it (e.g. the lamp - and to an extent Great Eastern Square which you may not have noticed on the other forum).

If evidence is provided to close off the issues I have raised about the Marginalia then I would not regard that as proving me wrong - as they are just questions, which of course could be answered. I am merely pointing out that so far they haven't been.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Ally,

Thanks for the answers.


No I don't "buy into" anything. I try to keep an open mind wherever possible. I am also, admittedly, too long in the tooth to be anything other that a "sceptic" by nature.. comes with age.

For me personally, and this is where I stand.. the purported "facts" in the Marginalia discredit the overall picture too much for me to take the Marginalia as a REPUTABLE and RELIABLE piece of information. There are way, way too many things that are just wrong, within it. And those wrong facts are then "excused" as possible "confusions"????...with another man???? hang on a minute...

The Marginalia's background, which Adam Wood worked dilligently on, left a few questions in my mind only.. and they have not been answered in a satisfactory way, for me, personally. I need not repeat them here.

There are things I do not like about the presentation of the Marginalia upon the world, the methodology of that presentation...the NOTW not releasing a world wide smash scoop when they had the chance, which (and I must emphasise here exactly what the NOTW USED to be like in the 70's and 80's...a sensational seeking newspaper dragging every name into the spotlight to attract readers..including successive articles and muck raking stuff about Peter Sutcliffe, I might add...)..this type of thing just would not be turned down... even if they were to wait for a "quiet week" to print the story.. it's a world wide smash scoop story..

"Jack the Ripper named by ex-Cop from 1888"

The promotion by the Crime Museum that "Aaron Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper in it's past, disturbs me greatly. The re- promotion of the re-vamped museum using the re-promotion of the Marginalia yet again disturbs me even more. Because, the museum ISN'T open to the general public... so revenue is limited. Income almost non existant, relatively speaking. So.... why go public with a thing that the public can't have access to? An announcement in the Police Gazette or such like would have sufficed.

Suddenly finding things lost down in cellar corners, things being anonymously sent to said place and even more suddenly finding single sheets down the back of filing cabinets is not a savoury mix over the years.. especially considering the involvement of the museum NOT being public... well.. it leaves question marks.. one being.. whoever sent the stuff anonymosly to the Police Museum with the "photographs" and Crippen material" should and would have known that the correct place to send them was the (then) "Public Record Office", where they belonged. Even an ex-senior policeman would have known that....

We can explain away in a million different ways all the things wrong with everything concerning the marginalia etc... but the fgact remains... had the whole thing been a great deal more factually correct... we wouldn't have reached the part where anyone felt they HAD to question anything.

Take the authentication of the Littlechild Letter for example.. and compare the reception it has been given, all things created equal. Nothing like the mess the Marginalia has caused.

And worse, in my opinion, is the non-realisation by some that we don't need any more of this "personal scribbles in the margin on private bits of paper" stuff..we need more of that like we need a hole in the head. Because Ally, as you agreed, we don't need more of the same type of "mess"...

What we need are authentic Police documents..facts. Home Office documents...facts. Not personal opinion fron way back when that cannot be either proven nor disproven.

IF, and I say IF, the marginalia ISN'T genuine.... IF there AREA people around who know that to be the case... I urge them..strongly urge them, to somehow get thre message out to the Ripper community, before even more embarrassment, should there be any, is fely. By anyone.

IF, and I say IF, the Marginalia is shown by an independant document examiner from a reptable auction house to be GENUINE... then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, forever.

Then perhaps Nevil Swanson and his good family can too.

All we need then is to find out who was behind the Diary.. and we are looking ship-shape. (I really do wish that old prankster and expert on Liverpool Jeremy Beadle was still around, really I do...) ;-)


Phil

[Observer]

Observer
If you read what I have said about those documents, it is that they have not been tested or put under any sort of examination – so they could be forged. I have never said they definitely are forged.
They could all prove to be genuine. I would have no problem if they are all proved genuine.

Hi Lechmere

From post #544

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

Observer

[Ally]

Hello Ally.

"With Rob House believing he was the Ripper and nobody else agreeing with him."

What of Jeff Leahy?

Cheers.
LC

Fair point. I actually could not tell you what Jeff Leahy believes, however I would never insult Rob by putting him the same category as Leahy.

But in any event I should have been more clear that I was referring to the usual suspects who are "smeared" with innuendo about the likelihood of them forging supporting documents to prop up the Marginalia. In this case: Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Adam Wood or someone who would have motive and opportunity and ability to forge the elaborate document. Seeing as none of them believe K was the suspect and Leahy lacks the ability to pass off a credible forgery, I did not consider him.

But yes, I should have been more clear and less flip. Mea culpa.

[Jenni Shelden]

Its not unfounded speculation. The reports of the handwriting have not proved it to be authentic for many reasons which have been documented. Despite some believing that to be the case.

Hi Trevor,
we've moved on from Dr Simpson's report, you know the one you admitted to not being conclusive, despite your repeated statements that it would show conclusive findings that the the marginalia was forged. The one the lady who on her own website admits she wasn't qualified to do such tests and recomends someone else.

Based on the fact you stated this was conclusive repeatedly and that it proved the marginlia fake, but now you try and get out of this, I'd say your opinion on whether or not a document examiner was qualified, was not valid.

with all the best wishes to you
Jenni

[jmenges]

For me the Marginalia (if genuine) is interesting as it illustrates the muddle and confusion that resulted at the very centre of the investigation almost certainly as a result of information overload and relying on third hand accounts.

So you believe the marginalia aids you in making the case for Lechmere regardless of whether it be genuine or a forgery. Either outcome would mean nothing to your suspect theory since you have ready made arguments for both possibilities.

Ally,

What is the point of this thread again?

JM

[Jenni Shelden]

Here is what is happening now, people are just throwing everything at this now, perhaps hoping people will miss what has been said or get side tracked.

I think we all agree that that the NotW documentation we have (as well as Express) substantiates the notion that the marginalia said Kosminski was the suspect in 1981. The only arguement I have seen put forward against this is that one or more of these documents are faked.

No one, as far as I know, has put forward any reason as to why they think this other than that they themselves do not know the EXACT circumstances that they were found.

Maybe those people should make the effort to contact Keith and ask him? Because none of us , as has been pointed out, were there when this was found, so none of us know for certain, without asking.

Iif you want to know something, go ask, go find out - or am I missing something?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

To Ruby,
maybe I missed something but if Jim was as you describe and such a big ego maniac, why did he approach two newspapers then wait 6 yesars to approach the next? Did i miss something, this does not make sense to me.

its nice to have hypothesis, but they should make sense.

I dont see any evidence that Jim forged anything.

Jenni

[Rob Clack]

Rob (Clack)
I shall try harder.

But if I am ever wrong about something and it is shown, I own up.
And if I discover something that proves me wrong then I share it (e.g. the lamp - and to an extent Great Eastern Square which you may not have noticed on the other forum).

If evidence is provided to close off the issues I have raised about the Marginalia then I would not regard that as proving me wrong - as they are just questions, which of course could be answered. I am merely pointing out that so far they haven't been.

I hadn't noticed Ed but fair play to you.

As I said earlier I have no issue with people questioning documents or anything else for that matter. Its the way its done that has been bothering me.
Also food for thought if as people suggest. Do you really think that it would be Kosminski's name in the back of the book?

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Its not unfounded speculation. The reports of the handwriting have not proved it to be authentic for many reasons which have been documented. Despite some believing that to be the case.

As i stated yesterday in a lengthy post to be able to form and opinion based on all that is known, one has to look at everything connected to the marginalia to first ascertain if the content and what that content shows is plausible.

In my opinion the contents and everything connected to it including Andersons book entry which is used by some to authenticate the content of the marginalia suggests that there is something wrong with the marginalia.

Even if the marginalia were re examined by an independent expert his report might also prove to be inconclusive.The reality is that there are simply not enough good quality control samples for any expert to carry out a full and proper examination for the benefit of both sides.

So if anyone is considering buying this book then i would expect them to have considerable knowledge of the case, and with that knowledge I hope that they would be able to see the discrepancies and irregularities which have been highlighted on here.

I am more than happy that the Marginallia is genuine and nothing in the 300,00 posts here has convinced me otherwise. If I had the money I would buy it in an instant.

Rob

[AdamNeilWood]

I think we all agree that that the NotW documentation we have (as well as Express) substantiates the notion that the marginalia said Kosminski was the suspect in 1981. The only arguement I have seen put forward against this is that one or more of these documents are faked.

No one, as far as I know, has put forward any reason as to why they think this other than that they themselves do not know the EXACT circumstances that they were found.

Maybe those people should make the effort to contact Keith and ask him? Because none of us , as has been pointed out, were there when this was found, so none of us know for certain, without asking.

"I think I have a fairly good idea of how the internal dynamics of the Crime Museum works as regards correspondence and paperwork having spent some considerable time (and continuing to do so) helping out on a voluntary basis to organise their office and archive.

I am constantly coming across material stashed away at the back of exhibition cabinets and tucked away in bulging files - some of which has been misfiled. My best guess has always been, (as outlined by Adam) is that Sandell made contact with the Museum circa 1981, perhaps letting them have a draft copy of the article for comments - and there it remained until I discovered it along with the memo."

Email from Keith Skinner, 15 November 2012, replying to the suggestion that it was strange that the Sandell memo and article were found "stuffed down the back of a filing cabinet".

[AdamNeilWood]

I am interested by the fact that I believe that it said in the Ripperologist article that Jim and brother Donald discovered the annotations in the book together.

This was before the effects were divided up, and when they had been taken to Jim's house for safekeeping.

It also says somewhere that the Family had to buy the items of Aunt Lal (?) which they wanted to keep, from the Estate.

The executor of the Will was Jim Swanson, and so presumably he was the person responsible for having the items valued.

In a letter to the Telegraph 3rd Oct 1987 :

[B]" In 1981, my Aunt, the last of my grand fathers surviving children died. As her executor I came into possession of my grand fathers notes on the Whitechapel murders."
Jim Swanson


According to Mary Berkin he put no value on on the Anderson book nor DSS
documents.

Jim had been a highly successful business man and he was not stupid about the worth of something. I don't believe that there are so many annotations in the book that they could not have been read. He knew that the annotations were there -could he have been so devoid of curiosity that he didn't read them ?

They might have been small and faint, but he was a man who's speciality was skinning and tanning frogs and mice -he was used to minute delicate work.

I am very puzzled as to how Jim thought the book was without value in 1981
if it contained the information that it does now. And why after 'coming into possession' of it, he subsequently had it insured for £ 7,000. It seems to have increased in value pretty quickly !

Ruby,

What Mary Berkin said was this:

"Valuation prices had been put on objects (except the documents and criminal memoranda), and we could choose things we desired and their value was debited from each inheritance."

As the 'criminal memoranda' had passed to Jim it was therefore unavailable to the rest of the family to purchase, which is why it didn't a valuation price on it as he did with the remainder of the items.

Adam

[Lechmere]

Rob
‘Also food for thought if as people suggest. Do you really think that it would be Kosminski's name in the back of the book?’
I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Observer
I used the term ‘secrete’ with respect to unused News of the World article and Memo as they appeared out of the blue – without explanation - when Keith Skinner was sorting through paperwork during a Crime Museum reorganisation in July 2011. Also at one time it was first said (by Adam Wood incidentally) that they were found down the back of a filing cabinet.
I think using the word ‘secrete’ is fair in those circumstances, but does not in itself imply that the documents were forged. It suggests suspicious circumstances (given that they are important documents so far as the Marginalia is concerned - vital so far as Ally is concerned) that should demand further investigation. That is my whole ‘point’.

I note that Adam Wood has just nudged us forward a little with an explanation of sorts from Keith Skinner as to how the Crime Museum documents may have come to be in place.

Mr Menges
You are right that the Marginalia means nothing for my suspect whether it is genuine or not.
That doesn’t mean that I regard this as a matter of no importance.
Firstly I don’t believe the whole world revolves around my favoured suspect.
Also in a way it is a test case in how documents should be treated and dealt with. I think that the Swanson Collection has not been sensibly or properly dealt with going back over 30 years and this has greatly contributed to the questions that are now being raised.
I don’t know why you are asking Ally what the point of this thread is.
I guess it was a clever rhetorical question.
I actually started the thread to query when and how it was being sold and to get confirmation that there was a change of circumstance with respect to that.