Private sale

[Chris]

Two people have independently said that the letter was not stuck in the front if the book in 1987.

Perhaps. I haven't seen their exact words quoted.

But what I asked you was whether it isn't necessary to be a bit careful about people's recollections of events 25 years earlier - unless they are supported by photographs or contemporary notes, for example?

For example, in 2006 Martin Fido remembered that the fee paid by the News of the World was something like £75. Of course, the documents say it was £750. Is that evidence that the whole of the correspondence was faked, or did Martin Fido misremember?

[AdamNeilWood]

Adam
I mentioned something like that about 300 posts ago when you first posted the Express letter.

Sorry, I missed that post. Now I've read it I think it's probably best to let you carry on, I could post 500 documents and you'd find something suspicious about all of them.

[Lechmere]

Adam
I have said several times that the Express letter is the best evidence so far supplied that suggests that the Marginalia contained the Kosminski reference in 1981.
Presuming it is genuine, I would agree that a slightly convoluted case has to be made to suggest that the Marginalia didn't contain the Kosminski reference in 1981.
However on its own I do not it think fully cancels out the various other problematic issues - not least due to the reference to testing and Jim Swanson's 'failure' to follow it up and at least see if they would offer more than the News of the World.

[Jenni Shelden]

Why wouldn't it be genuine?

[Lechmere]

Adam
Do you think that Jim Swanson's own letters are valid proof that the Marginalia is genuine?

I think it is slightly strange that the only pre 1987 non Jim Swanson originated correspondence that directly refers to the suspect's name is the Express letter and the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items.

By the way I presume you have seen the e-mail from Martin Fido (to Keith Skinner) and Charles Nevin (to you) saying they didn't see the letter pasted in place in 1987?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
I take it as a starting point when questioning the authenticity of documents that they may not be genuine.
That is probably the safest position to take.
However I suspect that the Express one is genuine, simply because it would be so easy to check.
But maybe that's a double bluff.

Forging a few letters is not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do.

In 'Ripperology' it isn't the safest position to take. Here the safest position is to close your eyes, say everything is genuine and run with the crowd.

[AdamNeilWood]

Adam
Do you think that Jim Swanson's own letters are valid proof that the Marginalia is genuine?

If you mean on their own, I'm happy that they prove the marginalia as we know it (ie including the suspect's name) existed in 1981.

If we add his sister Mary Berkin's comments about the discovery of the marginalia following Aunt Alice's death as being the first time any of the siblings had seen the name, I'm happy that the marginalia has provenance stretching back to Donald Swanson.

I think it is slightly strange that the only pre 1987 non Jim Swanson originated correspondence that directly refers to the suspect's name is the Express letter and the Scotland Yard Crime Museum items.

Why strange? What else should there be? Pre 1987, the only non-family who were aware of the marginalia were the Sunday Express, the News of the World and Jim Swanson's accountants (and the HMRC). Mary Berkin has said the name was discovered in 1981, but you'll discount her because she's related to Jim.

By the way I presume you have seen the e-mail from Martin Fido (to Keith Skinner) and Charles Nevin (to you) saying they didn't see the letter pasted in place in 1987?

Err have I seen two emails, one of which was sent to me, which I included in my article? Have I said that I didn't see them?

[Ally]

Why strange? What else should there be? Pre 1987, the only non-family who were aware of the marginalia were the Sunday Express, the News of the World and Jim Swanson's accountants (and the HMRC). Mary Berkin has said the name was discovered in 1981, but you'll discount her because she's related to Jim.

Exactly! I mean what in blue blazes do they need for proof. I have a feeling if a notarized letter on NOTW stationary turned up, stating that the suspect was Kosminski, while an interesting tidbit was not sufficiently interesting for publication, they would claim THAT was forged and Jim forged the notary too.

There is absolutely nothing that will convince them at this point. They've got their minds entirely set, and reason need not enter into it.

[robhouse]

Presuming it is genuine, I would agree that a slightly convoluted case has to be made to suggest that the Marginalia didn't contain the Kosminski reference in 1981.

What an understatement. Jesus, this is a colossal waste of time. Why anyone gives you any credit at all is beyond me.

RH

[Jenni Shelden]

What an understatement. Jesus, this is a colossal waste of time. Why anyone gives you any credit at all is beyond me.

RH

Hi Rob,
because people shouldnt be allowed to go all over the internet making accusations against recently deceased people and their relatives/'friends'/whoever else without foundation and go unchallenged else they repeat this as though it is a fact?

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
I take it as a starting point when questioning the authenticity of documents that they may not be genuine.
That is probably the safest position to take.
However I suspect that the Express one is genuine, simply because it would be so easy to check.
But maybe that's a double bluff.

Forging a few letters is not exactly the most difficult thing in the world to do.

In 'Ripperology' it isn't the safest position to take. Here the safest position is to close your eyes, say everything is genuine and run with the crowd.

Hi Ed,
appreciate that, I don't think that's very open minded though, a neutral position seems the safest to take I take the view they might be genuine or they might not, as you mentioned on another matter previously, we can agree to disagree on this.

I don't think anyone is closing their eyes and running, we've bared with you for 70 pages now its not exactly running. Its more considering , questioning, trying to understand, offering counter arguments. Its not running

Jenni

[Robert]

I do hope that Jim Swanson was Jim Swanson.

[Jenni Shelden]

Just looking back, as the correspondence set features many replies to letters from Jim Swanson, I don't think the previously made point that the correspondence set is somehow invalid stands up.

????

[Jenni Shelden]

I do hope that Jim Swanson was Jim Swanson.

Well, I havent seen any evidence, maybe he forged himself?

[lynn cates]

One more?

Hello Ally. Thanks. No big deal.

I think there may be another American chap who plumps for Kosminski. Is it John Malcolm? Sorry for such a bad memory--no disrespect intended.

Cheers.
LC