Private sale

[Bridewell]

And when they put up it leads to a constant barrage of hostile exchanges. because the likes you and a handful of others are never going to concede that

1. The marginalia may not be totally authentic

2. That Dr Davies report is flawed and that what he concludes in that report
is nothing more than his opinion.

Sorry, Trevor, but what else could it have been other than his opinion, his expert opinion? That is what he was asked for, wasn't it?

[Chris]

Bridewell

It's just one more irony that Trevor Marriott, in the post you quoted, accused me of not being willing to concede that the marginalia may not be totally authentic or that Dr Davies's conclusion is nothing more than his opinion.

On the contrary, it's Trevor Marriott who has misrepresented the opinion of someone he consulted as "conclusive" (even though that person was not a document examiner and disclaimed expertise in the comparison of questioned handwriting).

In contrast I've tried to be accurate in describing Dr Davies's conclusions, and when discussing his first report I have emphasised that he was not definite about the genuineness of the marginalia:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=72458&postcount=45

That led on occasion to some heated exchanges with Jeff Leahy, Martin Fido and others.

[Ally]

I am just going to wait oh-so-patiently for someone to provide a rationale for how Sandell's article managed to state that Swanson named Kosminski as the suspect in 1981 if in fact the line was not there in 1981.

[Ally]

Still waiting. Still patient.

[Observer]

Still waiting. Still patient.

Simon Wood is on his way so then we will have an impenetrable circle

Someone's put an inpenetrable circle around the inpenertrable circle

[Ally]

Apparently so. Or they are all frantically exchanging emails trying to come up with a logical explanation that isn't totally bonkers.

Either way... I'll wait.

[Ally]

Oh dear. I just realized in looking back over this thread that I somehow managed to skip at least two pages of posts and missed where they offer up their explanation as to how Sandell's article contained Kosminski.

They are now apparently attempting to claim that the article ITSELF was an elaborate (12 pages worth!) forgery.

So my question is: who precisely are they accusing of making THIS forgery? I mean it couldn't have been Jim Swanson who is the only candidate for forging the actual marginalia. So now we have a whole OTHER forger we have to go hunting for?

My lord, they certainly don't have a passing acquaintance with Occam's razor do they?

So direct question: Who precisely would have forged a TWELVE PAGE article (complete with scribbles and corrections for that oh-so-authentic look) and for what purpose?

I mean what possible purpose is there for the NOTW article forgery? Who benefits?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

I must have blinked.

Who are the "they" claiming the 12-page typewritten document to be a forgery?

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Hi Simon glad you are back. Do you mind taking a moment to answer my question? How precisely did Sandell know that the marginalia would claim that Kosminski was the suspect if it was not there when he saw it in 1981?

I will be perfectly happy to answer your question, however, I've been waiting quite patiently for an answer to mine for a while now. So if we could just clear that up, I'll be happy to move on to discussing who and what in regards to the NOTW forgery.

Sandell wrote in his 1981 article that DSS identified the suspect as Kosminski. He also identified the precise spot where the line was. How could he possibly have done that if the marginalia did not contain those words at the time?

[The Good Michael]

It seems to always be the same people...marginalia fake, Fenian murders, No Ripper, Cover-ups, Berner Street Conspiracy, Kelly's faked death... What I find amusing is that they are no different in their musings than that Felicity lady who was a homeless nutbag. This is the real cabal. Trevor is the mastermind (using that term loosely), and his shouts for transparency and truth create the fawning lackeys.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

I've just re-read Sandell's typewritten article.

Sandell may have been satisfied that Kosminski was the suspect Swanson was writing about based on the fact that [a] the marginalia was appended to Anderson's story about the Ripper being an [unnamed] low-class Polish Jew, and [b] the included Macnaghten reference to Kosminski.

But it is interesting to note that Sandell excluded the fact that Macnaghten had written "Kosminski -- a Polish Jew," which would have considerably strengthened the argument.

Also, why Sandell wrote, "Written neatly in the margins and on blank pages of a book he [Jim Swanson] found the Ripper's name . . ." and then failed to include the all-important "Kosminski was the suspect" beggars belief.

I regret to say that I am as stumped as you are.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Simon Wood;276024]

Hi Ally

But it is interesting to note that Sandell excluded the fact that Macnaghten had written "Kosminski -- a Polish Jew," which would have considerably strengthened the argument.

I am sorry, I fail to see what is particularly interesting about that? I do not believe that those two words by themselves inherently strengthen the argument for or against anything currently under discussion.

Either "Kosminski was the suspect" was there when Sandell viewed it and wrote the article, or it wasn't.

I regret to say that I am as stumped as you are.

Regards,

Simon

I am not particularly stumped. It seems perfectly clear that the line had to be there when Sandell wrote that article. He described its precise location and stated that Swanson named the suspect in that precise location. The fact that he didn't quote Swanson verbatim is irrelevant.

He stated where the quote was found and that the information identified Kosminski as the suspect. Therefore there is no other possibility except that the quote "Kosminski was the suspect" was there in 1981.

Logically speaking, there is no credible alternative that has yet been put forth, unless one wants to delve into the idea that someone completely forged the entire NOTW article as Lechmere and Marriott have suggested.

[robhouse]

He stated where the quote was found and that the information identified Kosminski as the suspect. Therefore there is no other possibility except that the quote "Kosminski was the suspect" was there in 1981.

I would like to hear Simon explain this sentence from Sandell's MS:

"Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure, my grandfather referred to Kosminski as "the suspect" because he was never brought to trial." --- Jim Swanson.

Where exactly did Swanson refer to Kozminski as "the suspect" if not the endpaper, where we know he wrote "Kosminski was the suspect".

My mind is reeling.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"Being a policeman and sticking strictly to procedure, my grandfather referred to Kosminski as 'the suspect' because he was never brought to trial." --- Jim Swanson.

"And here it is in my grandfather's handwriting," he might have added, indicating the last line of the endpaper notation—

"Kosminski was the suspect."

I would like you to explain why Charles Sandell might have felt it unnecessary to document this all-important historical fact for which his newspaper had paid £750.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

I would like you to explain why Charles Sandell might have felt it unnecessary to document this all-important historical fact for which his newspaper had paid £750.

He did document it Simon. He stated flat out that Swanson identified the suspect as Kosminski. How much more obvious does the statement need to be than:

...Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page in the back of the book named the man.
He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

That is absolute documentation that the line was there. Documenting something and quoting it directly are not the same thing. You are looking at every line through the lens of suspicion rather than logic. He points out precisely where the line is and gives the reader the "meat" of what it says. That Swanson identified Kosminski.

The paper got their money's worth.