Private sale

[Robert]

Spital?

Oh, spittle - as in Spittlefields. No wonder it was such an unhealthy area.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Well, if you have seen an answer to the question, you can solve the porblem by simply posting a link to it. But if you've been following the discussion, you'll know that the best Lechmere has been able to do is the suggestion about 'agreeing' with the letter pasted into the book, which - as I've pointed out - is no answer at all.

I'm sorry, I don't have all day ( going out in a minute to catch a train). however, I do read the thread and so I have seen that Lechmere has answered this question very clearly and sensibly. I seem to remember that I have also answered it before.

This isn't a game, you know. You and Lechmere have posted numerous suggestions that Jim Swanson - a real (but deceased) person - may have faked these documents, without a shred of evidence to back them up.

I certainly don't think that it is a game. I read that Ripperologist article when it was printed, and noticed things that didn't make sense -that's all. When I chatted to some other people I realised that I wasn't alone in smelling fish. I don't do weasle words, and so we can say Lechmere was one person that I conferred with. I will also say that I know that other people agree but they won't get involved here and risk falling out with friends or 'experts' etc.

It is only questioning, but if I think that there are some dodgy bits to the Marginalia story then I don't see why I can't question them ? So far, the answer seems to be that because my elders and betters (in Ripperology) tell me something is so, then I should just shut up and gob it without rocking the boat ? That is your basic answer.

I'm truly not a rebellious bolshy type of person -but I do have independant thought and an enquiring mind. I can't quite accept that although I'm not satisfied with the majority of the replies of the pro-Marginalists here, that means that I should shut up.

I wish that you would convince me and shut me up ; I have no axe to grinde.
It would be much easier for me at the Conference -as a shy person- to just agree with you, and pretend that I was convinced. You could be magnanimous to me then, and it would all go famously, but here's the rub : you haven't convinced me at all really. So I think that I'll say what I feel.

No, there isn't any concrete proof that any of the Marginalia, or supporting documents were faked -but there is some evidence.

If you're going to behave like that, you have a responsibility to explain how the scenario would work, at the very least.

Here we go again....

So I may as well ask you - why should Jim Swanson have inserted a publication date he knew to be false in the article, when the discrepancy was bound to be noticed if the article was published? What would conceivably be the advantage to him of inserting a false date, rather than not mentioning a date at all?

Here is my scenario ( only an imagined scenario, but Chris has asked me for a scenario) :

-Jim Swanson has forged some lines in the book LSOML, which he owns, and these have been accepted by the expert Ripperologists. These are only a very few people and he does not have to run the gauntlet of Casebook or JTR Forums, as they are today.

- Jim is a powerful personality and he owns the book, and controls the access to it, and he is used to networking, manipulating the Press, and has a lucid but cynical view of persuading the general public to his point of view. He has great charm and he is not used to failure.

-Jim has a letter kicking around from Sir Robert Anderson, which gifts a book in 1905 to DSS. Jim feels a particular emotional closeness to DSS. DSS was
another powerful personality in the Swanson family, and the family always talked about him -he was very successful and had an exciting life. Jim would quite liked to have been DSS.

-It's a big shame that although Anderson had gifted a book in 1905 to DSS, the book that counts with the annotations dated 1910 was only from a 'Fred'. Jim thinks that it SHOULD have been from Anderson. He owns the letter and the book, he has already been successful in turning the Ripperologists into pussycats, and he knows that the public will never question it. So, with a bit of arrogance, he glues the letter in to the front of the book.

-Then he realises all the implications. The Ripperologists have seen the letters as a loose leaf, and the book does date from 1910. 'They' don't realise it though. The letter is now glued in and must be supported as being originally there. Jim forges a supporting document.

[Lechmere]

Adam Wood, with whom I have had a few tense words now and then, at least addresses the issues and realises that these issues need to be addressed. He made it clear that he is trying to get answers to the questions that have been raised.
If the questions were ridiculous, then I am sure he wouldn't be bothering to try to answer them.
He is in a difficult position as he has to maintain a close relationship with the family for understandable reasons.
I understand the sensitivity of the matter.
I am happy to let them conduct their own investigation to see where it leads.

My purpose for opening this thread was as I became aware of moves to sell the book privately by the vendor approaching potential buyers more or less out of the blue. That seemed to me to be an escalation of the sales process. And indeed it is.
Obviously it is up to the owners to decide how they sell it, but there is a wider 'public' interest in the matter.
My concern is that it is not sold and does not disappear into private hands before the unanswered questions have been answered.
This seemed to be more imminent than I had previously thought - due to the information I became aware of.
That is all.

I have said that verifying the Scotland Yard Crime Museum documents would in essence verify the Marginalia.
I do not actually have to justify why it is necessary to verify the Scotland Yard Crime Museum material. I do not have to find flaws in it or show indications that it has been forged.
Best practice dictates that it is put under scrutiny.

I have recommended that this is done via a reputable auction house.
However there are other ways and means and from what Adam Wood has said proactive measures are in train to try and provide authentication for these documents.

[Lechmere]

Ruby - why didn't you just cut and paste what I had already said?

[Scott Nelson]

- Jim is a powerful personality and he owns the book, and controls the access to it, and he is used to networking, manipulating the Press, and has a lucid but cynical view of persuading the general public to his point of view. He has great charm and he is not used to failure.

-Jim has a letter kicking around from Sir Robert Anderson, which gifts a book in 1905 to DSS. Jim feels a particular emotional closeness to DSS. DSS was
another powerful personality in the Swanson family, and the family always talked about him -he was very successful and had an exciting life. Jim would quite liked to have been DSS.

-It's a big shame that although Anderson had gifted a book in 1905 to DSS, the book that counts with the annotations dated 1910 was only from a 'Fred'. Jim thinks that it SHOULD have been from Anderson. He owns the letter and the book, he has already been successful in turning the Ripperologists into pussycats, and he knows that the public will never question it. So, with a bit of arrogance, he glues the letter in to the front of the book.

-Then he realises all the implications. The Ripperologists have seen the letters as a loose leaf, and the book does date from 1910. 'They' don't realise it though. The letter is now glued in and must be supported as being originally there. Jim forges a supporting document.

But this is bizzare. It assumes that you have insight into the mind of Jim Swanson. And I'm not clear on the last paragraph. What supporting document did Jim Swanson hypothetically forge?

[robhouse]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;277707]

Here is my scenario ( only an imagined scenario, but Chris has asked me for a scenario) :

-Jim Swanson has forged some lines in the book LSOML, which he owns, and these have been accepted by the expert Ripperologists. These are only a very few people and he does not have to run the gauntlet of Casebook or JTR Forums, as they are today.

- Jim is a powerful personality and he owns the book, and controls the access to it, and he is used to networking, manipulating the Press, and has a lucid but cynical view of persuading the general public to his point of view. He has great charm and he is not used to failure.

-Jim has a letter kicking around from Sir Robert Anderson, which gifts a book in 1905 to DSS. Jim feels a particular emotional closeness to DSS. DSS was
another powerful personality in the Swanson family, and the family always talked about him -he was very successful and had an exciting life. Jim would quite liked to have been DSS.

-It's a big shame that although Anderson had gifted a book in 1905 to DSS, the book that counts with the annotations dated 1910 was only from a 'Fred'. Jim thinks that it SHOULD have been from Anderson. He owns the letter and the book, he has already been successful in turning the Ripperologists into pussycats, and he knows that the public will never question it. So, with a bit of arrogance, he glues the letter in to the front of the book.

-Then he realises all the implications. The Ripperologists have seen the letters as a loose leaf, and the book does date from 1910. 'They' don't realise it though. The letter is now glued in and must be supported as being originally there. Jim forges a supporting document.

This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on casebook... and that is saying something. Congratulations!

[AdamNeilWood]

Comments from former News of the World reporter

The following, posted with permission, is an email from Roy Stockdill, a retired reporter who worked at the News of the World from 1968-1998.

I sent him a copy of my article on the Swanson marginalia and asked for his opinion on the unused article by Charles Sandell.


Adam

I remembered after I had e-mailed you previously that in fact I wasn't in the News of the World newsroom in 1981. I was a reporter for 10 years up to 1978, then took an inside desk job and a promotion to the features department as assistant features editor. There were a lot of politics on the paper at that time - as, indeed, there were on all newspapers - and the newsroom and features department were rivals in getting stuff into the paper, and my former colleagues rather cut me off as they considered I had gone over to the other side! So I wouldn't have been party to the story by Charles Sandell at all.

However, I can confirm beyond a shadow of doubt that the 12-page copy you reproduce would have been Charles Sandell's original draft of the story. I saw literally hundreds, if not thousands, of stories during my 30 years on the paper and that was how original copy was presented, i.e. with every page bearing a catchline and continuous numbers in the top left-hand corner, so the sub-editor could follow it easily. How it somehow got into the Crime Museum I have no idea, I'm afraid.

The story was obviously written on a typewriter on A4 copy paper because we didn't have computers in the editorial department in 1981. That didn't come until the move to Wapping in 1986.

Reporters and feature writers wrote with typewriters on A4 sheets that had several "blacks" bound together at the top. The top copy would go to the sub-editors for subbing prior to going into the paper, a copy would be retained by the newsdesk, there would be another for the editor and a third would go to the lawyer.

If you looked at the News of the World from 1980-82 you will recall that it was a totally different paper at that time, being a broadsheet with a somewhat old fashioned (but lovely, I thought) scroll-type masthead. It didn't become a red-top tabloid until 1984. We still used to publish in those days lots of court stories of weird and wonderful sex cases and what we used to call "trad" material. The news and features departments were usually in competition to get their own stuff into the paper, so this may possibly have been why Charles Sandell's story never got published.

The correspondence from Robert Warren on the paper's headed notepaper looks entirely legit to me, as well.

Roy

[Sally]

Thank you, Adam, for posting the above.

I trust that this will mark an end to the speculation regarding the Charles Sandell's draft article and memo.

[jmenges]

Don't count on it, Sally.

Stockdill admits that he was not sitting on Sandell's lap when he composed his draft, which is what is required. In fact, he wasn't even in the newsroom. I have a suspicion that this email correspondence will be brushed aside as irrelevant. It was, after all, a mighty good forgery.


JM

[Sally]

I wish I didn't agree with you Mr. Menges.

[Scott Nelson]

This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on casebook... and that is saying something. Congratulations!

But I thought I wrote all of the idiotic things on casebook.

Ms. Retro comes in a close second, no?

[robhouse]

But I thought I wrote all of the idiotic things on casebook.

Ms. Retro comes in a close second, no?

No, I think you are confusing yourself for someone else.

[Scott Nelson]

Are you sure now, Rob?

I thought I was. Maybe it was all just a dream.

[robhouse]

I am glad to see this thread is dying. Maybe I can get the last post....

[Robert]

Thanks for that, Adam, and please thank Mr Stockdill.

I hope this settles the issue for the sceptics?

PS Bad luck Rob.