Private sale

[Nemo]

I can't find the tumbleweed emoticon

[jmenges]

I believe the cow has been dropped.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Correction

...
For whatever reason it had long been assumed that the book in question had been gifted to Jim by Anderson himself...

A slight correction here, the above should read 'gifted to Donald', and not Jim. Old age catches up with us all.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The issue remains that no one has managed to put together a convincing argument to suggest the document is a forgery. Not beyond the realms of possibility, but it needs a lot more meat on the bones to command mileage.

[Lechmere]

Sally
Sorry for my impatience – I didn’t imagine you were going to present such a lengthy thesis.

Yes, I am considering whether the Crime Museum items could be forged, because as they are important in establishing the legitimacy of the Marginalia I think they should be subject to scrutiny.
After all the Marginalia has been tested three – or four - times.
The supporting documents which have been used to give the Marginalia a clean bill of health have not been subject to the least scrutiny.

This is an absurd situation – and for pointing it out I find I am accused of all sorts of wickedness!

I am not seeking to provide any sort of proof that the Marginalia, or the Crime Museum items are forged. I am simply seeking to point out that sensible doubts should be entertained. I fully accept that alternative innocent explanations are available for the problem areas I have raised. That is totally missing the point however.

You are correct that at least two different typewriters were used. I hadn’t noticed that.
The memo wasn’t edited at all. The unused article was.
Copy typists and their notes were in very common usage before the advent of word processors. So were clanky old typewriters with dirty worn ribbons. I am old enough to remember that.

I discussed some hundreds of posts back the pros and cons of the look and feel of the unused article. I pointed out that a forger would almost as standard practice make it look rough and ready – to give it the patina of age – to make it look authentic.
So the fact that the unused article looks like a draft is hardly an argument for or against its authenticity.
Why would the typist include typos? Because they look authentic and if you were not a skilled typist you would naturally make typos.

The point about these particular documents turning up unannounced at the Crime Museum is that they are important. They are not some meaningless invoice or routine minute. Because of the way they were found they have no provenance. This suggests they should be scrutinised before being accepted.

It really is of no significance if it is as you describe, and loads of nondescript documents are stuffed down the back of the filing cabinets in every archive in the land.
Incidentally I find this very hard to believe as I have been in the vaults of the old City Archives prior to their centralisation at the Greater London Record Office and I saw nothing untoward. I have also worked for several very large bureaucratic organisations that generated miles of paper work every year, and while some odds and ends were not kept neatly, nearly everything was spick and span.
If those 'News of the World' items had been officially donated I find it very hard to believe they would have accidentally been mislaid, as up to 2006 the Crime Museum had nothing else Ripper-wise on display, apparently.

Sally you do disappoint me – I thought you had something special (to do with the documents I mean) that everyone had missed.

As I said – all I am arguing for is that the items be subjected to scrutiny. If they pass then that in itself will effectively authenticate the Marginalia.
Yet this very sensible and reasonable suggestion is being resisted tooth and nail.

Anyway there seems to be a tumbleweed moment that needs to be addressed!

[Sally]

Ok.

Whatever you say, Ed.

[Chris]

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.

But if - hypothetically (hardly a strong enough word) - they had faked the article, there is absolutely no way they would have put the incorrect date of publication in Jim Swanson's mouth. It would be like a medieval historian placing the Battle of Hastings in 1056.

[Lechmere]

Thanks to your deduction they are in the clear then!

[Chris]

Thanks to your deduction they are in the clear then!

I'm pleased to hear you say that.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

But if - hypothetically (hardly a strong enough word) - they had faked the article, there is absolutely no way they would have put the incorrect date of publication in Jim Swanson's mouth. It would be like a medieval historian placing the Battle of Hastings in 1056.

Chris -I'm not following you now; 'they' would have put the incorrect date of publication in Jim Swanson's mouth ??

Personally I believe that Jim Swanson always knew the correct date of publication and that he was aware that the book was not gifted from Anderson.

I think that if there were any forgers then Jim acted alone.

IF Jim forged the important annotations and tried to support them with back up material, then he was a clever man who thought ahead and was very used to the way the Press worked in a practical sense (but in a previous post I showed you that he was, and I supported it).

But Jim knew very well that the Public just believe all that they read in papers and books -he was a glorified shopkeeper selling Leather goods and using the Press to do it.

Everyone seems to be using their personal experience with shaky hands ( I think that the Conference caterers can expect some spillage), or their experience with archives to try to argue a point, and so I feel justified in using my personal experience too : as someone with commercial experience, I know that people will believe what they are told and especially when it is printed. Want to argue ? I am sure that if X label had some press coverage tomorrow, then idiots in Westfield would shell out large bucks for it.

I think that it is certain that Jim knew that ( he couldn't have done the job that he did without knowing that, and apparently he was a pioneer of it), and he was both annoyed at the way Donald and the Police had been sold down the river to the public, and also he MAY have thought that he could easily sell that bad publication date, and Anderson letter, to the Public ?

Afterall -the Ripperologists were charmed by Jim and beholden to him for having access to the DSS material.

He might have been a clever lovable rogue who felt he had an upper hand ?

What if ?

He might have got cocky ? Nobody challanged him on those dates. It was only down to a very few individuals at the time, and convince them and you've convinced the Public if it is printed in books.

Suppose he thought that he could very well sell that false publication date to the Public, and charm the Ripperologists into going along with the fib ?

Afterall, Casebook and JTR hardly existed at the time...get past a few people and you've got past the lot....

[Chris]

Personally I believe that Jim Swanson always knew the correct date of publication and that he was aware that the book was not gifted from Anderson.

I think that if there were any forgers then Jim acted alone.

It doesn't make sense. Why would he deliberately use the wrong date in the article?

[Monty]

I remember my previous question.

My previous question is: when certain people think that everyone involved in the Swanson Marginalia can be held endlessly accountable and their reputations analyzed, disparaged and questioned; when their motives can likewise be questioned, slurred, or out and out insulted, and all without a shred of deliberate wrong-doing on their part proven, why precisely is malicious badgering of those people considered acceptable, but when an author like Trevor Marriott, who has admitted lying and proven to be a plagiarist is called on the carpet, why precisely is that considered low and unacceptable??

Let's be real here. Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, Adam Wood and the entire Swanson family are all considered fair game even though there is not a single shred of evidence that any one of them have done anything deliberately wrong or with actual malice or ill- intent, and yet, Trevor Marriott-- oh no, his work and actions are above reproach and can't be questioned.

Still waiting for that explanation.

Worth repeating....constantly

Monty

[Rubyretro]

It doesn't make sense. Why would he deliberately use the wrong date in the article?

Chris - To support the glued in letter, which led to suppose that this copy of TLSOML was a personal gift from Anderson. How long can you chase your tail ? Don't you get bored with yourself ?

[Chris]

Chris - To support the glued in letter, which led to suppose that this copy of TLSOML was a personal gift from Anderson.

What would be the good of that? Your hypothetical deception would survive only so long as no one noticed the discrepancy between the date of publication and the date of the letter. The correct date of publication is perfectly well known, so the date in the article is no good as "support". On the contrary, making an issue of the publication date in the article would only make it more likely that the discrepancy would be noticed.

I'm sorry, but I can't help suspecting that the reason you never spell out clearly what you're suggesting is that it makes so little sense when you do.

[Lechmere]

Chris
If Jim Swanson wanted the world to believe that Anderson had given that book to his grandfather (and not that damned nobody Fred) then as the letter is dated 1905, he would have to present the book as if it were written in 1905 also.
So if hypothetically he wanted to create a supporting document, then that would also say that the book was presented by Anderson and published in 1905.

That is obvious and very clear.

It is worth repeating.... constantly.

It seems certain that Jim Swanson wanted the world to believe that Anderson had presented the book. What is the realistic chance that Jim Swanson got confused about it all and genuinely believed that Anderson had presented it? When Fred’s inscription was there for all to see?
Jim Swanson was clearly not an idiot.

Charles Nevin’s 1987 Telegraph article states that book was published in 1910 and does not say that the book was gifted by Anderson.
Paul Begg seems to have thought otherwise in 2003 . Possibly because he had seen the book after the letter was stuck in and like Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans in 2000, did not notice the incongruity and assumed it must have been there all along.
So Jim Swanson’s tactic was remarkably successful.
And even after it was discovered people make excuses for him.
And hypothetical forgers regularly make mistakes of just that sort Chris.

The sticking in of the letter implies a degree of dishonesty.
It is very strange that the unused article repeats the mistake when the unused article is supposedly dated prior to the letter being stuck in.

All I would suggest is that the unused article should be tested.
Why are people so averse to that?

Stewart Evans had his Littlechild letter tested. Well actually it was tested three years after its discovery when it featured in a TV program. Despite it having what he regarded as excellent provenance. Here’s a thought.
When it was tested, did Stewart Evans object that by testing it this meant that by implication he was being accused of being a forger? Or the book dealer Eric Barton, or George Sims or Camille Wolff, the person who put him onto the sale? Where any of them accused of anything?
Did the fact that it was tested imply that one of them was being accused of something?
No, as having it tested was merely a sensible precaution. Indeed it would have been ridiculous to throw out accusations prior to testing or to question why it should be tested, and utterly nonsensical to demand that whoever called for the test provide names of potential forgers.
You just recognise that testing is the appropriate cause of action and get on with it.

By the way – one for Simon Wood if he’s still reading.
Chares Nevin, being a journalist also knew that using the exact phrase:
‘Kosminski was the suspect’
was the money shot. He used it in his Telegraph article.
Unlike the author of the unused article.