Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Jenni,you make a good point in the days before I owned a kindle which enables me to highlight parts of my books I used to write notes on the bottoms of pages in my ripper books .These notes didn't mean I was agreeing with what was written on the page but to check it against another page or another book.

Hi Pinkmoon,
yes I would never write in a book, but using library resources shows me others are not so bothered

Jenni

[Scott Nelson]

But I got a book from your husband that had writing on the inside cover.

[Jenni Shelden]

But I got a book from your husband that had writing on the inside cover.

As I mentioned, others are not so bothered.

How the devil are you? Well I hope

is that what it said, sorry,

Jenni

[pinkmoon]

If the Swanson notes are fake what difference will it make to this case?We still have macnaughtons notes which mentions kosminski.We would know if kosminski was such a serious suspect I personally think the attempt to identify him must have been a desperate act by the police.

[robhouse]

If the Swanson notes are fake what difference will it make to this case?We still have macnaughtons notes which mentions kosminski.We would know if kosminski was such a serious suspect I personally think the attempt to identify him must have been a desperate act by the police.

All of this is, has been, and will continue to be, blathering nonsense contrived by people who are trying desperately to promote weak suspect theories.

RH

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, regarding the location. Why invent a "Seaside Home" ? By definition well outside the jurisdiction of the Met, or City Police. Wouldn't a fraudster have suggested that the identifying of Kosminski had taken place in a police station, within the boundaries of London? Failing this, as an alternative, perhaps suggesting that the ID took place in one of the London asylums. I can not see a fraudster making up a story where both the witness, and suspect, were taken 20 or so miles from London in order to conduct an ID. As I said, to me , the story has a ring of truth. Then again, perhaps I'm gullible.

The travelling from London to ? is another thing which is contentious why would they do that after all it is well documented that they were carrying out ID parades in and around Whitechapel.

This seaside home story is the fraudsters perfect ruse.

No one can prove or disprove it ever took place as a fraudster would have been working from Andersons book and the MM . In Andersons book he leaves the door open for such a ruse because Anderson doesnt mention where the ID took place, the name of the witness and the name of the suspect. Leaving the door open for the fraudster to build a story around what Anderson wrote. After all he expected that everyone would believe what Anderson wrote and what MM wrote in the MM thereby giving corroboration to the marginalia.

The question we have been asking is did the ID take place and any documentation relative to that is now destroyed lost or stolen, again the perfect get out of jail card for the fraudster.

[Jenni Shelden]

News of the World

Hi,
sorry, its late and my brain is hurting reading this thread which seemed to grow significantly every second today!

I can't remember or find exactly where it was people were talking about the News of the World letters from 1981. I have just been refreshing my memory by reading Adam and Keith's article in Rip 128, it seems to me that the evidence for the News of the World's involvement comes from several sources.

The documents uncovered by Keith Skinner in 2011 at the Crime Museum would certainly be one, but there were also private correspondence of Jim Swanson (to and from) and also invoices for payment received. And also correspondence with his accountants and HM Custom and Revenues.

I notice that the article does mention it is unclear how the items Keith found came to the Crime Museum, but it is noted elsewhere that Sandell was a true crime journalist. There doesn't appear to have been any issue or problem in Keith's mind when he found it and it is part of a wider trail of information.

Someone mentioned this was one of the things that should be tested. I don't see how this would help, it is part of a varied degree of sources about this and I can't see any reason to think that all these sources are fabricated.

I think it is an error to think that these documents could tell us anything other than from their internal words for this reason. I can't really see how anyone can reasonably disagree.

Obviously, this is my opinion, I don't claim to be an expert.

[Jenni Shelden]

The travelling from London to ? is another thing which is contentious why would they do that after all it is well documented that they were carrying out ID parades in and around Whitechapel.

This seaside home story is the fraudsters perfect ruse.

No one can prove or disprove it ever took place as a fraudster would have been working from Andersons book and the MM . In Andersons book he leaves the door open for such a ruse because Anderson doesnt mention where the ID took place, the name of the witness and the name of the suspect. Leaving the door open for the fraudster to build a story around what Anderson wrote. After all he expected that everyone would believe what Anderson wrote and what MM wrote in the MM thereby giving corroboration to the marginalia.

The question we have been asking is did the ID take place and any documentation relative to that is now destroyed lost or stolen, again the perfect get out of jail card for the fraudster.

If you were a fraudster wouldn't a better ruse be to say the id took place at Conley Hatch, or in Whitechapel or at a readily identifiable place?

In fact they don't have to say anything at all about it or you could just say other than that is right.

The more likely explanation is that Donald Swanson wrote this because he believed it to be true and he didn't explain it because he didnt need to as he knew what he meant.

Surely, you are happy to entertain this as a notion even if you disagree?

I dont think the marginalia proves Kosminski was the Ripper, but one has to say, the tests by the examiner and other factors (provenance eg) indicate that DSS was the author of the marginalia, so at the time he wrote it this is what he thought Anderson meant

best wishes
Jenni

[Cogidubnus]

Perfectly feasible Jenni that Swanson annotated his copy of the book to reflect what he thought his old boss meant...it seems logical...in fact in some ways the order in the wording suggests this...

Sorry Trevor but like Observer I find that the very unlikelihood of the Seaside Home account (regardless of where it might've been) does tend, to me at least, to add a certain versimilitude to the whole business...

All the best

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

If you were a fraudster wouldn't a better ruse be to say the id took place at Conley Hatch, or in Whitechapel or at a readily identifiable place?

In fact they don't have to say anything at all about it or you could just say other than that is right.

The more likely explanation is that Donald Swanson wrote this because he believed it to be true and he didn't explain it because he didnt need to as he knew what he meant.

Surely, you are happy to entertain this as a notion even if you disagree?

I dont think the marginalia proves Kosminski was the Ripper, but one has to say, the tests by the examiner and other factors (provenance eg) indicate that DSS was the author of the marginalia, so at the time he wrote it this is what he thought Anderson meant

best wishes
Jenni

No because by mentioning specific places the fraudster might not want to risk checks being made at a later stage. By not mentioning the name of the seaside home how could anyone attempt to check it out or even find it.

And Swanson after writing all that he wrote in which he never names the suspect, he never names the witness and on the last line he writes Kosminski was the suspect. Apart from that it is an embellished version of what Anderson wrote.

And Anderson between 1888-1908 was telling everyone that they didn't have a clue to the identity of the Ripper.

It is suggested by some that the marginalia corroborates what Anderson wrote what a load of old tosh what does it corroborate nothing because Anderson doesn't say anything positive in any event. The marginalia doesn't say anything other than that name conveniently added at the end and out of context with the rest of the writing.

And you and others cant see why there is a question mark hanging over it take the blinkers off for once be prepared to consider other scenarios.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perfectly feasible Jenni that Swanson annotated his copy of the book to reflect what he thought his old boss meant...it seems logical...in fact in some ways the order in the wording suggests this...

Sorry Trevor but like Observer I find that the very unlikelihood of the Seaside Home account (regardless of where it might've been) does tend, to me at least, to add a certain versimilitude to the whole business...

All the best

Dave

Well whatever that is I would stop adding it

How can someone in a situation like this write what he thought someone meant. Anderson didnt say anything positive.

If that were the case why didn't Swanson give the full details ? He only goes part way to corroborating Anderson and the rest is almost a mirror image of Andersons writing.

The whole issue is contentious right from Andersons entry to the marginalia.

[Cogidubnus]

Well whatever that is I would stop adding it

Adding what Trevor, Versimilitude?

You ought to look it up in a dictionary (it's a big book of words in case you weren't aware)...

It might influence your whole literary life for the better

How can someone in a situation like this write what he thought someone meant. Anderson didnt say anything positive.

If that were the case why didn't Swanson give the full details ? He only goes part way to corroborating Anderson and the rest is almost a mirror image of Andersons writing.

So in your book (if it isn't, in fact, someone elses) a person's written commentary on another's text is invalid as a mere comment and can only be viewed as some form of approbation for their views? What a strange and narrow-minded life you've led...and what a distorted view on history you must hold...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I see you're editing it yet again Trevor...want to see if adding yet more crap will make it any better?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I see you're editing it yet again Trevor...want to see if adding yet more crap will make it any better?

Oh you've given up...very wise I suspect...

All the best

Dave

[Chris]

I can't remember or find exactly where it was people were talking about the News of the World letters from 1981.

A summary and transcripts can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5899

[Note of caution: These are transcripts of documents relating to the marginalia. Those of a nervous disposition may wish to dismiss them as fakes (while being careful not to name any names) if they don't fit in with their preconceptions.]