Private sale

[Ally]

Hi Robert,

It wasn't there it 1981. It was miraculously there in 1987.

C'mon, you've been around the block a few times.

Work it out for yourself.

Regards,

Simon

Sorry Simon this does not play. The evidence is clear that it was there in 1981. No one has managed to put forward any credible alternative. Vague statements, innuendo and crytic comments do not trump actual evidence.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Easy to say, but where exactly is the evidence that it was there in 1981?

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Once again... HOW did Sandell know the precise location of the suspect name and what that name was unless he had seen it??

[Robert]

Simon, I can only imagine that you're questioning the authenticity of the Sandell memo and draft article.

[Chris]

Easy to say, but where exactly is the evidence that it was there in 1981?

The evidence that the name was there in 1981 is obviously in the draft News of the World article and also in the copy of the letter from Jim Swanson to the NoTW which says that DSS names the suspect (the word 'names' being underlined).

Of course it could be argued that both these documents were also fakes and that the fake article was somehow planted in the Crime Museum. But I can't imagine many people finding that credible.

If people are determined for the marginalia to be fake, it would be more credible if they just suggested they were faked before Sandell saw the annotations, and that "his brother's house" and "Colney Hatch" were just lucky guesses. And that Davies was wrong about the handwriting. I'd suggest that would be only wildly implausible, rather than absolutely fantastic.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Another excellent question.

Where in Sandell's typewritten article [vide Rip 128] is there even a whiff of proof positive that D.S.S. named Kosminski as the suspect?

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Uh... you mean besides the sentence where he WROTE exactly that Swanson named Kos as the suspect.

[Jenni Shelden]

Here's a spoon let me use it, look the helicopter...

sorry this is getting tired now, when someone has explained something, it seems possible that someone else comes and makes the same incorrect point thats just been answered, as though it wasn't satisfactorily.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Chris,

Repetitious?

In the absence of that final, all-clinching "Kosminski was the suspect" sentence all we are left with is somebody's word that Kosminski had been named in the marginalia by D.S.S.

If push came to shove, Sandell's typewritten article [vide Rip 128], which offers no proof, would be thrown out of a court.

Regards,

Simon

Dr Davies report looked into the notion the Kosminski like was different and found it to be inaccurate, did I imagine this?

[Jenni Shelden]

Thank you, do you have a reasonable answer? Because, though I admit I have been a leading questioner of the Marginalia over the years, I can find no reasonable explanation to Sandell stating in his article that Swanson named Kosminski, and described the exact page and location where it appeared, except that the line was there in 1981.

This completely destroys in my opinion any speculation that it was written after reading Martin Fido's book and I cannot come up with a logical explanation that would satisfy. K was the suspect had to be there in 1981.

This is is something I agree with explained far better than I could.

Coming from someone who has been a questioner also, you'd think that would be enough to stop people calling close minded

[robhouse]

Hi Ally,

Another excellent question.

Where in Sandell's typewritten article [vide Rip 128] is there even a whiff of proof positive that D.S.S. named Kosminski as the suspect?

Regards,

Simon

"Said Mr. James Swanson, commenting on the notes: 'Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure, my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial.

'But he was convinced in his own mind that Kosminski was the Ripper..." etc.

Page 6 of Sandell's typed MS, April, 1981.

On the endpaper Kosminski is referred to as "the suspect". Here Jim Swanson says "my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial."

1 + 1 = 2 etc.

RH

[Robert]

What do folks make of Sandell Jack 2 : "But now 9? years after the Ripper's reign of terror..."? It looks like a 97 as been changed to 98, or vice versa, but neither makes sense.

[Chris]

What do folks make of Sandell Jack 2 : "But now 9? years after the Ripper's reign of terror..."? It looks like a 97 as been changed to 98, or vice versa, but neither makes sense.

It's very difficult to make out, but to me the original figure looks more like a 3 than anything else. And it looks as though it has been scribbled out rather than changed to something else.

[Rob Clack]

What do folks make of Sandell Jack 2 : "But now 9? years after the Ripper's reign of terror..."? It looks like a 97 as been changed to 98, or vice versa, but neither makes sense.

It's very difficult to make out, but to me the original figure looks more like a 3 than anything else. And it looks as though it has been scribbled out rather than changed to something else.

[ATTACH]15590[/ATTACH]

My initial thought, was that it said '99' and then changed (very badly) to '93' which would be right. 93 years after the reign of terror would be 1981.

Rob

[Robert]

Well in any case, for the draft to have been forged the forger would have had to write "obituaries published after his death" and then deleted "published after his death" which would have been a nice touch.