Private sale

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,
we've moved on from Dr Simpson's report, you know the one you admitted to not being conclusive, despite your repeated statements that it would show conclusive findings that the the marginalia was forged. The one the lady who on her own website admits she wasn't qualified to do such tests and recomends someone else.

Based on the fact you stated this was conclusive repeatedly and that it proved the marginlia fake, but now you try and get out of this, I'd say your opinion on whether or not a document examiner was qualified, was not valid.

with all the best wishes to you
Jenni

Well the inconclusive reports speak for themselves and anyone with at least one brain cell should be able to see that. It appear that some dont even have that capacity to see that, or perhaps they just dont want to see it for what it is.

[Jenni Shelden]

No, I missed them being inconclusive your right .To be clear you are saying anyone who reads a document analysis report and doesn't understand probably only has one brain cell ?and imply that's me?
This coming from someone who when unable to answer a question and btw about that evidence Chris is close to the Swanson's,where is that again .You cry blue murder sayin I personally insulted you ,which I didn't then you have the nerve to call me stupid .
Take a look in the mirror and think about what that makes you

[Chris]

Yes.
In the News of the World unpublished story (supposed to be from 1981) which turned up, Jim Swanson tells of finding the Anderson book containing the marginalia and states clearly that the book was published in 1905.

He then goes on to say " As my Grandfather worked under Sir Robert, and was involved in numerous cases, he was pleased to receive a signed copy" .

Jim Swanson knew that the book was inscribed from 'Fred', and in 1987 he knew that the book was published in 1910.

So why does he infer that the book was inscribed by Anderson, and why does the NOTW article say that it was published in 1905 -the very date of that Anderson letter that he glued in ?

Could it be that the NOTW article was actually written after the 1987 letter,
and back dated ? Could it be that the article was written to support the glued in letter ?

What is the basis for saying that Jim Swanson knew the book was inscribed from 'Fred'?

Given that Jim Swanson knew the correct date of publication in 1987, why on earth would he subsequently have tried the give people the impression that it was inscribed by Anderson five years before that date? It makes no sense. Anyone with access to a library catalogue would be able to see it wasn't true.

Isn't the obvious solution that the letter was glued into the book before 1981, that Jim Swanson therefore thought in 1981 that the book had been published and inscribed by Anderson in 1905, and that he later found out the correct date of publication?

[Rob Clack]

Rob
‘Also food for thought if as people suggest. Do you really think that it would be Kosminski's name in the back of the book?’
I’m not sure what you mean by this.

If the marginallia was faked between 1981 and 1987 I would be surprised if the forger named the suspect Kosminski.

I am going by a 26 year old memory when am saying this so I am prepared to be corrected and I won't be definite until I get home late tonight.

Rob

[AdamNeilWood]

Jim Swanson is supposed to have written to the News of the World on 28th March 1981. This was followed, according to the memo, by Charles Sandell visiting Jim twice. Sandell would have then researched and penned the 12 page article.
The memo is dated 15th April 1981. That was speedy work by Sandell.
Robert Warren wrote to Jim Swanson on 16th April 1981 to confirm the agreement with Charles Sandell and asking that Jim send one copy back. Until the News of the World had received that signed copy back, there would have been no agreement.
Logically the Sandell article would not have been written until after this. Otherwise he was potentially wasting his time. Of course he was wasting his time as the News of the World for no obvious reason and after spending £750 – a decent sum of money back then – neglected to use this scoop.

Charles Sandell wrote to Jim Swanson in April 1982 and apparently, while discussing DS Swanson, did not mention the all-important Kosminski suspect aspect.

I pointed out the seeming coincidence that Charles Sandell died on 19th August 1987, and that Jim Swanson approached the Telegraph with a view to providing them with the Marginalia story on 3rd October 1987. A few days earlier Jim Swanson had asked the News of the World to release him from their earlier agreement.
I wondered whether these two events could be linked. In other words did Jim Swanson hear that Charles Sandell had died and this, in conjunction with some stories in the Telegraph, prompted Jim Swanson to make the approach? As Sandell would not be there to say that he had never seen the name Kosminski mentioned in the Marginalia?

I am about to post a number of images which constitute the correspondence from Jim Swanson and the various replies, from his first letter to the NOTW to his first letter to the Telegraph. These will appear in chronological order and will include the NOTW memo.

I hope when everything is read in sequence it will be obvious that this was an ongoing dialogue.

As the letters sent by Jim Swanson exist in the form of carbon copies, some of those images have had to be enhanced considerably to render them legible.

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Jim Swanson to News of the World, 26 March 1981. NB same letter was written to Sunday Express on same day.

Page 1

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Jim Swanson to News of the World, 26 March 1981. NB same letter was written to Sunday Express on same day.

Page 2

==================

[Lechmere]

The 1905 letter wasn't pasted over the Fred inscription in 1987. So it can hardly have been there in 1981.

Rob - Kosminski was known prior to 1987. Whether someone would likely pluck his name out of the air to at least superficially match what Anderson and perhaps Swanson was writing is arguable.

Adam - these will be useful.

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Sunday Express, 9 April 1981 confirming interest.

Jim Swanson's handwritten note confirms he wrote on 23 April saying story already sold.

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Memo from Charles Sandell to the NOTW News Editor dated 15 April, stating he had visited Jim Swanson twice to view the marginalia and agreed a fee of £750.

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Robert Warren, News Editor of NOTW dated 16 April 1981 confirming the agreement. Jim Swanson signs and returns 23 April as requested.

NB Jim Swanson's handwritten note thanking Warren of his further letter of 22 April relates to confirmation of the second agreement, see letter following.

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Jim Swanson to Charles Sandell, 20 April 1981 asking for a further £250 should a second story be published using information from the marginalia.

Page 1

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Jim Swanson to Charles Sandell, 20 April 1981 asking for a further £250 should a second story be published using information from the marginalia.

Page 2

==================

[AdamNeilWood]

Letter from Robert Warren dated 22 April 1981 confirming the additional agreement of a further £250.

==================

[pinkmoon]

Memo from Charles Sandell to the NOTW News Editor dated 15 April, stating he had visited Jim Swanson twice to view the marginalia and agreed a fee of £750.

==================

I can't quite understand why he had agreed a price of 750 it seems very cheap to me why forge anything for such a small amount......now if we are talking millions of pounds count me in.