Private sale

[Jenni Shelden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kQuUQNduZk

Don't care about all the posts in front of me I just want to be... Happy

[Lechmere]

Technically Sally's wasn't a question. It was more of an answer but she seemed to require my assistance in order to frame it - although by her previous remarks it all seemed so obvious and simple.
But I don't want to be too hard on the old girl. I can wait.

I haven't shirked any questions Chris. Yours seems impenetrable to you, so it is no wonder I missed it amongst the babble.
Why can't you just type it out again? You've typed out several posts since I asked, so you must have time on your hands.

How long is your question for heaven's sake?
Is it like one of those questions to a speaker after a meeting, when the question is longer than the speech?
Is it going to be more like a statement where you go on and on and on?
Is it multiple choice?
How long will I get to construct an answer?
Do I have to answer from memory or can I consult books?

[Lechmere]

Jenni
As you're here can't you ask Chris's question?

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni
As you're here can't you ask Chris's question?

Hi Ed,
I think it was that you thought it was strange that Jim Swanson should get the date of publication of Anderson's book and the author of the inscription wrong, and suggested that might point to the draft News of the World article being a fake.

But how would it solve the problem of the error over the publication date? Because the faker would then be responsible for precisely the same error. And do you really think it likely that this hypothetical faker - mentioning no names, but we're looking at someone with access to the Swanson documents, someone conversant with the official records of the case, and someone so well connected they were able to plant a fake document in the Crime Museum within New Scotland Yard - do you think it remotely credible that this person would not know the date when Anderson's book was published?

Who do you think would be more likely to make a mistake over that date: Jim Swanson in 1981 (who, for example, thought that Anderson had been the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) or this (hypothetical) prominent Ripperologist?

Best wishes
Jenni

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzLT6_TQmq8

[Chris]

I haven't shirked any questions Chris.

Sorry, but I tried several times to get you to answer it, and I frankly don't believe you if you say you have forgotten it.

I see Jenni has now been to the trouble of finding it and quoting it. Perhaps you'll now have the decency to answer it.

[Chris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kQuUQNduZk

Don't care about all the posts in front of me I just want to be... Happy

An interesting cover version of this thread's theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx5-nTLIns

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry, but I tried several times to get you to answer it, and I frankly don't believe you if you say you have forgotten it.

Yes, Chris, I think you are right that it is likely bluster to try and claim you are somehow at fault for question not being answered.



Jenni

ps Paddington Bear says hi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSJijKBJvM

[Lechmere]

Ah – that poorly phrased garbled guff. I did answer it.
I will go over it again stage by stage.

I think it was that you thought it was strange that Jim Swanson should get the date of publication of Anderson's book and the author of the inscription wrong, and suggested that might point to the draft News of the World article being a fake.

Yes I do think it is strange. I have said that before.

But how would it solve the problem of the error over the publication date? Because the faker would then be responsible for precisely the same error. And do you really think it likely that this hypothetical faker - mentioning no names, but we're looking at someone with access to the Swanson documents, someone conversant with the official records of the case, and someone so well connected they were able to plant a fake document in the Crime Museum within New Scotland Yard - do you think it remotely credible that this person would not know the date when Anderson's book was published?

This is incredibly garbled.
If the unused article was faked, then why would this faker be a different person to the one who stuck the Anderson letter over Fred’s inscription? In which case the faker would want the unused article to agree with the marginalia with the letter stuck in.

But say someone different wrote the unused article, perhaps someone acting on behalf of the person who stuck the letter over Fred’s inscription.
If this second person were given the doctored copy of Anderson’s book to assist with their writing of the unused article, then they could easily have got muddled by the letter being stuck there. The letter would superficially suggest the book had been presented by Anderson in 1905.

Anyway this sort of theorising – who did what etc is not what I want to get into.
In any case after 1987 many people knew the contents of the Marginalia and many people were conversant with the official records. We have no idea how it got into the Crime Museum – for good or ill.

It is sufficient to point out that in 1981 the letter was not stuck over the Fred inscription.
So it is very odd that an article supposedly from 1981 would be written in such a way as to suggest the letter was stuck over the Fred inscription.
It is as simple as that.

Who do you think would be more likely to make a mistake over that date: Jim Swanson in 1981 (who, for example, thought that Anderson had been the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) or this (hypothetical) prominent Ripperologist?

I have never suggested that a hypothetical prominent Ripperologist did anything.
I think it is unlikely that in 1981 Jim Swanson could have made an innocent mistake over the name of the person who inscribed the book and the date of publication.
This is because in 1981 Fred’s name would have clearly been visible and the only date in the book would have been 1910.
The letter with Andersons’ name and the date 1905 were not stuck in at that time.
Therefore I find it very strange that Jim Swanson innocently thought otherwise.
I think there is a very good chance that Jim Swanson didn’t do it in 1981.
The Ripperologist part of your question is irrelevant.
I have said this before.

Any mistake over Anderson’s rank is of an entirely different nature and has no relevance to the letter being stuck over the Fred inscription. The unused article refers to Anderson as Assistant Commissioner CID.
In his unused and undated letter to the Telegraph Jim Swanson refers to DS Swanson as being ‘appointed to be the Eyes and Ears of the Commissioner in this case’, which is a reference to the Warren Memorandum. This is another strange anomaly as the unused article suggests Anderson was the author of the Warren Memorandum and refers to Anderson as the Assistant Commissioner CID, but the ‘Commissioner’ reference could just be shorthand for that. Stewart Evans claims he was the first to notice that the Warren Memorandum was by Warren and not Anderson in 2000.
I am not sure of you are suggesting something around this issue?
If so it has no bearing (I was going to avoid using that word) on the inscription issue.

I repeat – the only relevant issue so far as I am concerned is that it is difficult to explain why Jim Swanson thought in 1981 that the book was presented by Anderson and published in 1905.

Who wrote the unused article (if it is indeed a forgery and if it was not the same person who stuck in the letter) and who deposited it in the Crime Museum and when these deeds were done are different issues.

[Chris]

Ah – that poorly phrased garbled guff. I did answer it.

Of course you didn't answer it then, and you haven't answered it now - you've just said you "don't want to get into it."

As usual, all you can do is proceed by innuendo - continually saying things are " strange" and so on. And most of the time these "strange" things are actually harder to explain on the assumption that the marginalia are fake.

The scenario of the article being faked and planted in the Crime Museum is preposterous. You can't even begin to explain how it would work - and the question of the incorrect date is only one of the details that would need to be explained. (And remember that even if the date of publication weren't well known, it is still in plain view even in the annotated copy of the book, so the idea of Jim Swanson or anyone else mentioned an incorrect date in order to "agree" with the book is absolutely nonsensical.)

[Lechmere]

What you did in that horribly garbled question was raise about four questions.
I previously answered the ones that seemed worthwhile answering.

I’m not in the business of generating scenarios.
I have point out unexplained things that are suspicious.
Such as the letter being pasted over the Fred inscription
Such as the fact that the letter wasn’t pasted in 1981 yet the unused article is written in such a way as to suggest it was.
Such as that there is no explanation for the 1981 unused article turning up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.

Less telling, but also such as the Crime Museum memo borrowing one of Jim Swansons’ expressions.
And such as the memo being unsigned and not on memo paper.

I could weave all sorts of scenarios for how the documents got into Scotland Yard – and in brief I have suggested several.
I have given an explanation why the forger will have made the dates agree.
Two very experienced Ripperologists – Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans - didn’t notice the date discrepancy when they saw the book in 2000. That really is all that needs to be said.
Anything more than that is not necessary so far as I am concerned.

I do hope Sally isn’t going to rely on what you have said to ‘prove’ that the Scotland Yard Crime Museum material is genuine.

I pointed out in another Marginalia tread that I once bought a medal from the Second Afghan War that had two clasps for Kandahar and Ali Musjid. It was awarded to a solider from the 4th Rifle Brigade. I later found out that the 4th Rifle Brigade did not serve at Kandahar – 4 members of that battalion were present in various capacities but not the named person who got my medal. The medal and the claps must have been stuck together from broken bits and pieces.
It fooled me and bought it. But I found out it was effectively a forgery.
Not all attempts at forgery are skilled in all aspects of their creation. They very often included blunders. People who do these things often get carried away with their own skill and make sloppy mistakes which leads to their demise.
They usually get away with things as people want to believe and don’t carry out even very basic tests.

[Sally]

Hi Ed - I hadn't forgotten. As Chris points out, I did say that I was busy. Good Lord, it's the weekend!

Anyway, here we are.

So, you're considering the possibility that the Crime Museum documents were forged. Ok. In considering these sorts of questions, it's often helpful to look at the documents as well as the content because it can give you a fuller picture with which to form your judgement - think of it as two sides of a coin, or perhaps two halves of a marmalade sandwich.

First off, nobody can provide absolute proof here. It wouldn't be viable in the scientific sense of the word. We can deal with probabilities though. There are a couple of simple observations to make about these documents that might help you to decide whether they're forged or not.

I apologise - some of this would be better illustrated, but I seem to be having trouble posting attachments, so you'll just have to look for yourself if you want to verify anything. I think Robert provided a link to Adam Wood's Rip article earlier in the thread if you don't have it already. So, briefly:

Firstly, the memo and draft article have been typed on two separate, and different machines. Pages Jack 1-3 have been typed on one machine (let's call this one machine 1) and the memo and the remainder of the article have been typed on another (let's call this one machine 2!)

The most obvious indicator that this is so is that machine 1 uses a different font from machine 2. This is most easily seen by looking at the lower case 'g' and 'y' in both cases. You'll see that they are quite different.

Secondly, the memo has been edited throughout using editing marks that were standard notation for a copy typist at the time. Some of the editing marks - closure and space marks, for example, make little sense outside this context.

Some of the edits have been done on the typewriter, presumably at the time of writing. Some are handwritten edits, which look like they've been done by one person at first glance.

Other 'instructions' for a copy typist are present. For example the initials 'M.F'. (More Follows) on pages Jack 10 and 11, for example, which are there to indicate that the reported speech at the end of the page continues to the next one. The word 'End' at the end is obviously to indicate that there is no further text.

The obvious, straightforward explanation for all of this would be that the author of the documents - we'll assume in this case that we're talking about Charles Sandell for the sake of argument - wrote the article at at least two sittings using different typewriters. An easy explanation would be that he had a typewriter at home as well as the one he used at work. That would be consistent with his working life, I should think. On the other hand, it's worth noting that the 1987 NOTW letter has been produced on a machine using a similar font to machine 1 (not the same machine, but could be the same type, or similar)

Regarding the edits, the obvious, straightforward explanation would be that the draft was written with the intention of passing it to a copy typist, who would've typed up a fair copy for approval by the author before it went to the editor. There may lie your answer to the absence of headed paper and signature on the memo - it may well be a draft copy in itself. I don't know, incidentally, whether an internal memo would have been produced on headed paper or not in this case, so that may be a moot point anyway.

The memo would've been the supporting document for the draft article - so much is obvioius - and was probably written after the draft article was complete - that's usually the way it goes. We have substituted email for internal paper memos these days, of course, but the principle remains the same.

In short, the documents demonstrate an unremarkable similarity to countless other office drafts produced at the time; and reflect contemporary office procedures pretty much as you'd expect.

Now, considering the question of forgery: for this to be viable, you would need either a single or multiple forger(s) producing the documents on different machines. You would also need to explain why said forger(s) went to the trouble of producing a draft containing numerous typos and amendments and which contained extensive typing notation for a secretary.

None of the above would be necessary for a forger in order to pass off a fake, so I think you'd be looking for a plausible explantion for these actions.

Hypothetically, if you wanted to see if Charles Sandell was the person who annotated the draft article, you could compare with his 1982 letter, I suppose.

On your specific concerns:

You view the discovery of the Crime Museum documents at the back of a filing cabinet as potentially suspicious. I think Adam Wood answered this one in post #613. Outside of the public face, which is the one you see, it isn't unusual to find misplaced, misfiled, and largely forgotten documents in paper archives. It isn't inherently suspicious as you seem to think.

You view the similarity of phrases in the draft article to phrases used by Jim Swanson in his correspondence as potentially suspicious. I think I've said this before, but the obvious solution to this is that Sandell used the same correspondence, or notes from the same, for reference when he wrote the draft article. Any factual errors present in the draft article could be explained in a similar way. It's called compound error.

On balance, and considering all the available facts, it seems more likely to me that the Crime Museum documents are exactly what they appear to be.

[Stewart P Evans]

It seems to me...

...
This is incredibly garbled.
If the unused article was faked, then why would this faker be a different person to the one who stuck the Anderson letter over Fred’s inscription? In which case the faker would want the unused article to agree with the marginalia with the letter stuck in.
But say someone different wrote the unused article, perhaps someone acting on behalf of the person who stuck the letter over Fred’s inscription.
If this second person were given the doctored copy of Anderson’s book to assist with their writing of the unused article, then they could easily have got muddled by the letter being stuck there. The letter would superficially suggest the book had been presented by Anderson in 1905.
...
It is sufficient to point out that in 1981 the letter was not stuck over the Fred inscription.
So it is very odd that an article supposedly from 1981 would be written in such a way as to suggest the letter was stuck over the Fred inscription.
It is as simple as that.
...
I think it is unlikely that in 1981 Jim Swanson could have made an innocent mistake over the name of the person who inscribed the book and the date of publication.
This is because in 1981 Fred’s name would have clearly been visible and the only date in the book would have been 1910.
The letter with Andersons’ name and the date 1905 were not stuck in at that time.
Therefore I find it very strange that Jim Swanson innocently thought otherwise.
I think there is a very good chance that Jim Swanson didn’t do it in 1981.
The Ripperologist part of your question is irrelevant.
I have said this before.
...
I repeat – the only relevant issue so far as I am concerned is that it is difficult to explain why Jim Swanson thought in 1981 that the book was presented by Anderson and published in 1905.
Who wrote the unused article (if it is indeed a forgery and if it was not the same person who stuck in the letter) and who deposited it in the Crime Museum and when these deeds were done are different issues.

It seems to me that there is little doubt that the person who stuck the 1905 Anderson letter in the front of the book was Jim Swanson. There really isn't anyone else, logically, who could have done it.

The point to make is, however, that the act of sticking this letter in the book does not indicate that the 'marginalia' is faked, that any other Swanson material is faked or that the article was faked. True it gives ammunition to the detractors who wish to insinuate all sorts of dark deeds on Jim's behalf, which is unfortunate. I met Jim and from our short acquaintance found him to be a delightful old man who was very accommodating to those with an interest in his grandfather. And I believe that Jim's only intent would have been to enhance the copy of Anderson's book by tipping in a letter from Anderson, despite the date being wrong (1905 instead of 1910).

For whatever reason it had long been assumed that the book in question had been gifted to Jim by Anderson himself. There were other Anderson books that had been, so it would be an easy assumption to make (e.g. see Jack the Ripper The Definitive History by Paul Begg, London, Pearson, 2003, page 266, where it states, "At the end of 1987 the Daily Telegraph revealed the existence of a copy of Anderson's memoirs presented by Anderson to the retired ex-Superintendent Donald S. Swanson, into whose capable hands the Ripper investigation had been placed. It was one of several books presented by Anderson to his old friend...").

Possibly Jim had realized that the inscription in the book indicated another donor, 'Fred' and not Anderson, and was concerned that the book had been widely publicized as being a gift from Anderson, thus enhancing its qualities. But common sense dictates that the 'marginalia' has nothing to do with who gave Swanson the book, it's irrelevant. The 'marginalia', written by Swanson, still means the same whether the book was sent by Anderson or anyone else.

[Robert]

Hi Sally

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of "M.F." I'm not sure how it works for Jack 10 because there don't seem to be any quotes involved there. Could Sandell have simply been writing the last 2 pages in the office and passing them to the copy typist page by page, putting "M.F." to indicate more was coming? (he could have given the typist the first 10 pages, the last with "M.F.", and then did page 11 with "M.F." which he then gave to the typist, and finally the last page)

[Sally]

Hi Sally

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of "M.F." I'm not sure how it works for Jack 10 because there don't seem to be any quotes involved there. Could Sandell have simply been writing the last 2 pages in the office and passing them to the copy typist page by page, putting "M.F." to indicate more was coming? (he could have given the typist the first 10 pages, the last with "M.F.", and then did page 11 with "M.F." which he then gave to the typist, and finally the last page)

Hi Robert - yep, you're quite right - silly me! I've been a bit pushed for time this last couple of days, so that's entirely my error - not looking as carefully as I should.

Your scenario is plausible and reasonable; particularly since the 'More Follows' notation occur near the end of the draft. It all helps put the draft into context

[Stewart P Evans]

Poisonous business

Mr Evans
...
For example I could say that Stewart Evans has a vested interest in the Marginalia being authentic as it passed through his hands and he didn’t take the opportunity to question Jim Swanson when he was still alive.
I could also argue that Stewart Evans has a vested interest in documents being accepted as genuine without too many questions being asked as he owns the Littlechild Letter (which mentions Tumblety about whom Stewart Evans wrote a suspect book).
...

At first I wasn't even going to respond to this snipe in your rambling (as usual) post. But I simply couldn't let it go.

It's the poisonous business you are into, casting slurs on others disguised as hypothetical scenarios or exemplars. And there seems to be no stopping you. You seem to feel that you have little status in Ripperology so you are setting about building yourself up as some sort of force to be reckoned with as a 'new expert on the block'. Trouble is you haven't done your homework well enough. I'm sure that you will claim that you stated the above as examples of only what you 'could' argue. But the nonsense is that you have gone right ahead and made the suggestions. It doesn't need any disguising. You meant it and wanted to say it, and you have. As usual you haven't thought it through.

First, if I had a vested interest in the marginalia being authentic I should hardly have taken the route I did (what weird things you suggest). Au contraire, my interest surely would have been to cast doubt on it, if I had grounds for doing so, as I don't argue for the 'Kosminski' theory and I have set the record straight on Anderson's reliability. I would also hardly have publicly pointed out the problems with the 'marginalia' as I did, I would have simply kept quiet about it. I revealed it in the interest of historical accuracy. I was also open about the reason for not revealing it whilst Jim was still alive.

Your second snipe borders on the libellous, when you suggest that I have 'a vested interest in documents being accepted as genuine without too many questions being asked as I own the Littlechild letter (which mentions Tumblety about whom I wrote a suspect book)'. What exactly are you suggesting? You are certainly, at the least, setting afloat suggestions that might be damaging to my reputation. I am putting that one before my legal adviser.

Apropos of the Littlechild letter, it is a genuine item bought from a genuine antiquarian dealer and was part of an actual collection of George R. Sims material (I also have some of the other items). The letter led to the discovery of the previously unknown to Ripperworld 1888 articles on Tumblety and revealed him as a suspect. On top of all that it was deemed necessary to test the letter and it was examined by one of the foremost document examiners in the country, and a paper expert, both of whom gave it a clean bill of health.

At this juncture I don't feel that I want to (or should) discuss anything else with you.