Private sale

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Chief Inspector Swanson didn't write that "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski," but we'll let that piece of journalese pass.

"The paper got their money's worth" and then promptly spiked the story.

That just about sums it up.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Considering it is a technique you have employed in the past in several of your own articles on a much larger scale, I know you are familiar with the term"artistic license".

The facts remain: in 1981 Sandell wrote an article that stated unequivocally that Donald Swanson identified Kosminski as the suspect being referred to in Anderson's book.

There is no other logical explanation except that the marginalia was there in 1981.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

"In 1981 Sandell wrote an article that stated unequivocally that Donald Swanson identified Kosminski as the suspect being referred to in Anderson's book."

True.

"The marginalia was there in 1981."

True.

What I am trying to establish is whether in 1981 "Kosminski was the suspect" was the final line of the endpaper notation and, if so, why Sandell thought fit not to record it in his article.

Regards,

Simon

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Simon ,
how could it have been stated that dss had given jtrs id without that line being there ?
didn't Dr Davies state that line was contemporary with those dirctly above or do I misrember?
Jenni

[Ally]

Hi Ally,

What I am trying to establish is whether in 1981 "Kosminski was the suspect" was the final line of the endpaper notation and, if so, why Sandell thought fit not to record it in his article.

Regards,

Simon

It was there, and he did record it in his article. I don't understand your question. He stated that on the EXACT PAGE that "Kosminski was the suspect" was found, Swanson identified the suspect as Kosminksi. Therefore the LINE WAS THERE and Sandell recorded it in his article. There is no question. There is no way Sandell could have pointed to the exact page and given that information if the line wasn't there. NO possible way.

What are you actually asking. He identified the exact page and told you what Swanson said. If your single gripe is you think he ought to have quoted it, rather than just told you what it said, tough. That doesn't change the fact it absolutely had to be there in order for Sandell to have written what he did.

What other explanation is there for Sandell stating that on the back blank page Swanson identified the suspect as Kosminski??

He stated the page. He stated the information. What precisely more do you need to prove that the line was there in 1981? He wasn't required to quote it. The exact quote is irrelevant. The information contained in the quote is what is important and Sandell documented that information.

[Chris]

"In 1981 Sandell wrote an article that stated unequivocally that Donald Swanson identified Kosminski as the suspect being referred to in Anderson's book."

True.

Not only that, but it stated that Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book, named the man.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

If, in another time and parallel dimension, this was all brand new and the Sandell article was the Wood dissertation, by now you would be screaming blue murder at me, demanding that I indicate where, and exactly how, D.S.S. had said what I reported him as saying whilst generally dismissing the whole story as "beyond crap".

I write from personal experience of such matters.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Charles Sandell [Jack 5], verbatim—

"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man.

"He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

D.S.S. wrote no such thing on a blank page at the back of the book.

Regards,

Simon

[Jenni Shelden]

It is clear from the annotated passage of Andersons being one that mentions the suspect is a Polish Jew that dss is also talking about this same Polish Jew

[Ally]

Hi Ally,

If, in another time and parallel dimension, this was all brand new and the Sandell article was the Wood dissertation, by now you would be screaming blue murder at me, demanding that I indicate where, and exactly how, D.S.S. had said what I reported him as saying whilst generally dismissing the whole story as "beyond crap".

I write from personal experience of such matters.

Regards,

Simon

What in holy hell does that even mean? Are you attempting to pass the blame for your own inability to accept simple logic onto me?

What does that even mean? Because you are completely incapable of coming up with a reasonable and logical scenario that explains how Sandell managed to indicate the precise information and location of a disputed piece of writing, this is somehow a reflection on my ability to comprehend simple logic?

I have asked you a blunt and direct question that you have dodged, contorted, twisted, shucked and jived in order to avoid providing an answer for.

The difference you will find here, is I actually go by facts. And when new facts present themselves I am capable of altering a former opinion or adjusting it accordingly. It's a small matter of having academic integrity, rather than slavish devotion to a cause that has proven not to bear fruit.

In other words, I am capable of changing my mind when presented with actual facts. You should try it, it's refreshing.

And still I ask: if "Kosminksi was the Suspect" was not on that precise paper that Sandell pointed to when he wrote his article, how in blue blazes did he manage to write what he did in his article.

It's a simple question Simon. You shouldn't have this much trouble answering it.

[Chris]

Charles Sandell [Jack 5], verbatim—

"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on a blank page at the back of the book named the man.

"He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

D.S.S. wrote no such thing on a blank page at the back of the book.

No, he didn't write that. But he said that the Jewish immigrant described in Anderson's book was called Kosminski. There's a perfectly obvious explanation for Sandell's inaccuracy here - he was conflating what the two men said.

But what possible explanation could there be for Sandell saying that Swanson named the man as Kosminski, if he didn't name the suspect at all?

[Ally]

This argument is beyond moronic. So because the author took journalistic liberty and added polish jew (even with it being clear from all preceding passages that Anderson had been talking about polish jews as Jenni mentioned) there is one other bit of stupidity to consider.

So if Sandell had written instead "He said it was a man named Kosminski" would you be throwing a fit because Swanson didn't actually use the descriptor "man". It is blatantly obvious that the "polish jew immigrant" is thrown in there for the benefit of the READER - you know the people that Sandell is actually writing the article for?!

FFS you would think people who have written articles would understand adding in some bits to clarify basic information for the uninitiated.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jenni,

I'd like to know the answer to your first question. Charles Sandell and his spiked story sure have confounded matters.

I haven't yet re-read the Davies report, but will be happy to get back to you as soon as I have.

Your observation about the page 138 marginalia is correct. Sure they appear to be writing about the same man. But if you look at it dispassionately D.S.S. was only filling in what Anderson had previously written as a footnote to his original Blackwood's article but thought fit to leave out of his later collected volume.

No revelations there.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

A word to the wise. Unless you're a flamenco dancer, stamping your feet is a waste of time and effort.

Charles Sandell [Jack 5], verbatim—

"In notes in the margin and on the back page Swanson explains:"—

All I expected of Charles Sandell was for him to conclude his in-quotes rendition of Swanson's pencilled endpaper notations with the immortal words—

"Kosminski was the suspect."

It's not much to expect of a journalist.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

So what you are saying is, you have absolutely no logical explanation for how he knew that the marginalia named Kosminski, you are simply hanging your hat on the fact that he didn't write it like you think he ought to have written it.

So you have no actual argument. You are just mad and pitching a fit for no good reason? Because a man, 20 something years ago didn't word his article to your satisfaction??

You can't explain how he GOT the information, so you are just going whine about how he presented it? When the facts aren't in your favor, just dance around them and hope no one notices the footwork. Got ya.

P.S. "The immortal words". Snort. That's a good one. Because boy oh howdy everyone in the world cares about this minute little bit of nonsense except our small band of madmen. Please.