Private sale

[Chris]

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.

Sorry to be personal, Trevor, but how thick is your skin, to the nearest inch?

In most fields, being exposed as a plagiarist and a liar would induce at least a brief pause for thought, but you don't even seem to break your step!

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry to be personal, Trevor, but how thick is your skin, to the nearest inch?

In most fields, being exposed as a plagiarist and a liar would induce at least a brief pause for thought, but you don't even seem to break your step!

Another cheap shot oh dear carry on water off a ducks back to me your arguments have been blown out of the water so all you can resort to is that.Its pathetic to watch.

If you cant stand the heat I would withdraw gracefully if that is possible with you. You come here full of your own importance and arrogance and it may impress others but not me.

The reality is whether you consider my actions to be just or not, one thing it did do is bring the marginalia back into the public domain for people to re assess their thoughts on it. Where as it might have readily been accepted as being authentic without questions being asked,which was the object of the exercise and it worked exactly as planned.

[Chris]

The reality is whether you consider my actions to be just or not, one thing it did do is bring the marginalia back into the public domain for people to re assess their thoughts on it. Where as it might have readily been accepted as being authentic without questions being asked,which was the object of the exercise and it worked exactly as planned.

As I've already pointed out, that could be the case only if people took you seriously.

But the question is what you think about your own actions. You admit that you publicly lied about what a graphologist had told you (and naturally you concealed the fact that it was a graphologist rather than a document examiner).

Do you feel there was anything wrong in that at all, or do you feel that the ends justify the means, as far as lying is concerned? (Before you answer that, you may want to anticipate what question will come next!)

[AdamNeilWood]

The phrase you used was said by you to me when we were discussing the marginalia at York

No, I said there was a lot of evidence which would be presented in my forthcoming article which would clarify much of the marginalia history. You continually came to up to me throughout the weekend at York asking for details - I said to wait for the article which would be published two weeks later.

You have chosen to represent that as a quote in your Secret Files book as a full quote by me which I didn't actually say. Is that misrepresentation?

It reminds me of when I was researching and writing my article on the Aberconway Version, which had never been published before. The week before it was due out in Ripperologist magazine you emailed me asking for photographs, and then became incensed when I declined. "You'll never get an interview from me in the future!"

And for the record you failed to disclose the fact that dr Davies had been engaged to do another examination that speaks volumes as to the conduct of you and others who were advising Nevil talk about hidden agendas

And for the record why should I have done? I was finalising five months' research into the marginalia. What makes you so special that I should have told you before anyone else?

Talk about delusions of self-importance.

It speaks volumes about you that you honestly believe I should have told you a single thing I was doing.

[Ally]

The reality is whether you consider my actions to be just or not, one thing it did do is bring the marginalia back into the public domain for people to re assess their thoughts on it. Where as it might have readily been accepted as being authentic without questions being asked,which was the object of the exercise and it worked exactly as planned.

Oh what an absolute crock of crap. You got caught in yet another lie and now you are trying to make it seem like it was all some sort of master plan, when in fact, what occurred was ADAM WOOD did an exhaustive and in-depth article on the Swanson Marginalia and he got Davies to take another look at it based on new material. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you, and you trying to claim credit for someone else's work is abhorrent (though an established pattern at this point).

[Lechmere]

Jenni

I don’t think there is anything in the text of the Marginalia that a potential forger could not have written.

As Trevor said, mentioning the Seaside Home could be regarded as a clever ruse – an impenetrable reference that cannot be contradicted and can never be confirmed.
If it said the ID took place at an asylum, then we would know from the Isenschmid case that the medical authorities would never have allowed this.
If it said the ID took place at some location in Whitechapel then plausibly someone like Abberline or Reid would know – and evidently they did not.

Who is to say that amongst DS Swanson’s papers there wasn’t a reference to the Seaside Home in some other context?
In short the Seaside Home reference is hardly a stumbling block to the Marginalia being a forgery.

Regarding the annotations in Paul Begg’s book – of course they could be perfectly innocent annotations by Jim Swanson.

Similarly, of course DS Swanson could have written all the Marginalia.
Incidentally I’m not sure what you mean in post 311 by:
‘But all the marginalia shows is that is what Swanson felt’.

But both of these propositions are somewhat besides the point. The Begg book annotations and the details in the Marginalia do not disprove a forgery or prove a forgery.

The annotations in the other DS Swanson books could be evidence that he regularly annotated books – or it may have given a forger the idea to carry out a forgery, or they may also be forgeries designed to lend authenticity to the Marginalia. So again the existence of those annotations doesn’t really take us anywhere.

I think Sandell was reasonably well known and I would guess that his death would have been referred to by at least one newspaper – but I do not know.

The News of the World (with Sunday Express) correspondence comes from Jim Swanson’s files and the article found at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum. All these items came to light in July 2011.

Of the correspondence from Jim Swanson’s file at least one letter was seen in late 1987 by Telegraph journalist Charles Nevin.
The first time an ‘outsider’ had seen the Marginalia was in late 1987 – apart from Sandell who had died in August 1987.
It might be that all or some of the correspondence from Jim Swanson’s files are genuine. They relate to Jim Swanson’s attempt to sell access to the Marginalia in 1981.
Adam Wood published some of it in his Ripperologist article. None of the published correspondence refers to the fact that DS Swanson revealed the suspect’s name and I believe none of the unpublished correspondence from either the News of the World or the Sunday Express does either.

I believe two letters from Jim Swanson mention the naming of a suspect– one to the News of the World from 1981 and one to his accountant from 1984. These letters are evidence that the suspect was named in the Marginalia prior to it being seen in 1987, so these letters could also be tested.

Then there is the document that turned up at Scotland Yard in 2011 – which consisted of an unused article and an internal memo both of which mentioned Kosminski.
It appeared out of the blue and there is no explanation as to how it got there.
There is a chance it could be a forgery that was planted there to ‘prove’ that the Marginalia mentioned Kosminski when it was shown to Sandell in 1981.
This document effectively proves that the Marginalia was complete – i.e. hadn’t been added to – when Jim Swanson approached the News of the World in 1981. In the context of the Marginalia’s authenticity it is quite an important document.
However the circumstances of its discovery are odd to say the least.

Just shrugging your shoulders and saying ‘I can't see any reason to think that all these sources are fabricated’, is a cop out.

Besides just getting a second opinion on the handwriting –which in itself would be a valuable exercise in my opinion – there are several untested lines of enquiry that can be used to authenticate the marginalia. The supporting documents.
Namely the 1923 letter that has previously been referred to.
The items that turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
The letters from Jim Swanson to the News of the World and his accountant.

Even possibly the ledger that was used to validate the Marginalia in Dr Davies first test.

Remember if it is a fake there are two possibilities:
All the Marginalia is fake but the entries were added at separate times and were all in place in 1981.
Some of the Marginalia entries are authentic but they were added too after 1981.

The thing is, when dealing with a new discovery such as this you have to be sceptical and probing – seeing if there are any suspicious circumstances, anything that doesn’t add up, are there potentially sinister explanations for things. It means not being ready to seize on every innocent explanation when there is an equally possible guilty one.
Feeling inhibited from suggesting certain items should be tested because it might imply someone has done something bad is really not an option.
Things should be looked at from all angles and anyone who has a document of this nature really should expect it to be tested and looked at from all directions and not take offence.

OK I know the Marginalia isn’t new now, but we are still in an unsatisfactory situation where questions have not been answered and issues are still unaddressed.

[Fisherman]

...you have to be sceptical and probing – seeing if there are any suspicious circumstances, anything that doesn’t add up, are there potentially sinister explanations for things. It means not being ready to seize on every innocent explanation when there is an equally possible guilty one.

Watch out, Edward - people will be saying you are hijacking the thread to discuss Charles Lechmere ...!

Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I said there was a lot of evidence which would be presented in my forthcoming article which would clarify much of the marginalia history. You continually came to up to me throughout the weekend at York asking for details - I said to wait for the article which would be published two weeks later.

You have chosen to represent that as a quote in your Secret Files book as a full quote by me which I didn't actually say. Is that misrepresentation?

It reminds me of when I was researching and writing my article on the Aberconway Version, which had never been published before. The week before it was due out in Ripperologist magazine you emailed me asking for photographs, and then became incensed when I declined. "You'll never get an interview from me in the future!"




And for the record why should I have done? I was finalising five months' research into the marginalia. What makes you so special that I should have told you before anyone else?

Talk about delusions of self-importance.

It speaks volumes about you that you honestly believe I should have told you a single thing I was doing.

Adam
You did say that quote and I fully expected you to now come back and say you didn't.

As to your involvement in the re examination you and others knew I had raised some issues. In high insight surely it would have been more practical to approach me and ask what issues needed addressing etc,especially as I have had dealings over the years with handwriting experts. But no the cartel thought they knew best and now its gone tits up and as I said previous the Swanson family are left holding the baby.

Nice work ! If anyone needed proof that there is a cartel this nails it to the floor.

[Monty]

Adam
You did say that quote and I fully expected you to now come back and say you didn't.

As to your involvement in the re examination you and others knew I had raised some issues. In high insight surely it would have been more practical to approach me and ask what issues needed addressing etc,especially as I have had dealings over the years with handwriting experts. But no the cartel thought they knew best and now its gone tits up and as I said previous the Swanson family are left holding the baby.

Nice work ! If anyone needed proof that there is a cartel this nails it to the floor.

Yes Adam,

You should have approached an untrusted, shown plagiarist whose basic grasp of the case is negligible, an admitted liar who has confirmed that he has hidden motives when dealing with people and full of his own self importance, yet has bought NOTHING of worth to the field......

.....yes, thats the man to trust.

Monty

[Monty]

As Trevor said, mentioning the Seaside Home could be regarded as a clever ruse – an impenetrable reference that cannot be contradicted and can never be confirmed.

You really shouldnt be relying on Trevors words Ed.

Monty

[Chris]

Adam
You did say that quote and I fully expected you to now come back and say you didn't.

So it's your word against Adam's, is it, Trevor? Who do you think people will believe?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Adam,

You should have approached an untrusted, shown plagiarist whose basic grasp of the case is negligible, an admitted liar who has confirmed that he has hidden motives when dealing with people and full of his own self importance, yet has bought NOTHING of worth to the field......

.....yes, thats the man to trust.

Monty

And here speaks a cartel member !

[Monty]

And here speaks a cartel member !

And there chats a man whose reputation is in tatters.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

So it's your word against Adam's, is it, Trevor? Who do you think people will believe?

Do I care ?

[Trevor Marriott]

And there chats a man whose reputation is in tatters.

Monty

In tatters eh well I hadnt noticed it but if you say so, after all you are a self proclaimed expert with your bull lamp shining bright and you police records tucked under your arm I would say that makes you a really boring and sad person.

But you have a nice day !