Private sale

[Lechmere]

Regarding the Express letter, I spelt out quite clearly and in great detail my stance on it back in post 473 and earlier in post 382, although my comments on it were completely ignored. This was after Adam put it up initially in post 354.
I have stated a few times that it is the best document produced so far that suggests that the Marginalia contained the Kosminski name in 1981. Although I seem to be the first person to realise this, including Adam, who didn’t include it in his Ripperologist article!
This thread is the first time it has been seen by a wider audience, and it is only just now, 300 posts later has the penny dropped – so I need no late in the day lectures on its potential importance.

However I repeat my stance that on its own, and in the face of other unanswered questions, the Express letter is not enough to authenticate the Marginalia.

It is no good caricaturing what I have said.
I do not seriously dispute the authenticity of any of the signed letters on company headed notepaper.
I recognise that forging these documents is of a different magnitude from, for example, Jim Swanson simply re writing one of his own letters.
I feel I have to explain everything now in case someone deliberately misconstrues. So…
I did not just accuse Jim Swanson of forging his letters. I mentioned it as an example to compare the relative difficulties of two types of forgery.

But if we are examining the possibility that someone may have faked some or part of the Marginalia, and if we wish to eliminate Jim Swanson from that accusation, then using his own letters, which he could potentially have written at any time, is utterly useless.
This is so obvious that I should not even have to say it. It is like asking someone to alibi themselves.
In short, if he faked the Marginalia, where he would have had to mimic his grandfather’s handwriting, then then how much easier would it have been to re-write a few of his own letters in order to create a paper trail?

But let’s return to those signed letters on headed notepaper.
None of them refer to the suspect – apart from the Express letter and they did not see the Marginalia.
The signed letter on Sandell’s personal headed notepaper doesn’t refer to the suspect either.
The unheaded and unsigned memo, that turned up at Scotland Yard Crime Museum in unexplained circumstances does refer to the suspect though.
So the very worst document in terms of provenance is the one that mentions the suspect (excluding the Express item).

Adam

In your ‘Ripperologist’ article you mentioned a letter that Jim Swanson sent to Charles Nevin dated 9th October 1987.
Any chance of putting that up? I’ll tell you why.

I quote from your article:
On 9 October 1987 Jim wrote again to Charles Nevin, revealing he had found more papers belonging to his grandfather.
These referred to Donald Swanson being placed in overall charge of the Ripper case. The papers also recorded a list of victims and alleged victims, as well as the attack on Annie Farmer.
and
Interestingly, it’s clear from Charles Sandell’s internal memo that Jim had shown the same documents to the News of the World reporter, so this was far from a new discovery six years later in 1987.

So in 1987 Jim Swanson claimed to have found various other documents (these are currently lost I understand). But the information in these documents was included in the 1981 article that turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
Was Jim Swanson gilding the lily in telling Charles Nevin he had just found these documents? Or was the 1981 unused article actually written after 1987?
Either way it would be helpful to see Jim Swanson’s letter to Charles Nevin so readers could make up their own minds on that one.

I referred to the two emails from Charles Nevin and Martin Fido as it is suggested that they were wrong in remembering that the Anderson letter was not glued in place in 1987.

Is there anything else to back up Fido and Nevin? Well yes!
In his unpublished letter to the Telegraph that must have been written after 27th October 1987 Jim Swanson wrote:
‘My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.’
Why did he say 1910? Clearly because this was the year the book was published. So he must have known in 1987 that the book was published in 1910 and not 1905, the date on the letter that was later stuck over the Fred dedication.

I have also stated – but will repeat it as a lot seems to get washed over – that I doubt any additions were made to the Marginalia prior to 1981.

Jenni
In case you haven’t noticed I haven’t made any accusations against anyone – much to some people’s annoyance.

[Sally]

Ed - I'm starting to think that you're a closet idealist.

You do entertain some curious notions, really - for instance that newly discovered historic documents are routinely and rigourously examined. Really? When did this start happening? Outside of documents under scrutiny for legal reasons, this rarely happens. Or that the comparatively modest success of Jack the Ripper in the tourism market indicates that the Swanson Marginalia would have a high market value? Hmm. The two are very different things - a basic grasp of economics would inform you there. Or that papers don't fall down the back of over-stuffed filing cabinets all the time. You seem to think it suspicious that an uncatalogued document could just turn up one day in a paper archive. Sorry, Ed, but that's really quite funny. I suggest you go and do a bit of research in that direction if you truly believe that it's at all unusual. Some of your local archives have so much uncatalogued stuff that they couldn't tell you how much there is....exactly.

Then you seem to think that forgery is easy. I've found these handy instructions from WikiHow - just for you, so you can have a go at it. Ah! But the caveat is that you have your forgery examined by a reputable document examiner - no graphologists, thanks - and see if it gets past 'em.

http://www.wikihow.com/Copy-Someone%27s-Handwriting

Then we'll see how easy it is to replicate the handwriting of another with any real degree of conviction, won't we? (you have to ignore the warning at the bottom of the page about forgery to do this, mind you)

Sandell's memo - theoretically, that would be easier to test if you had suitable documents to make a comparative analysis. Sandell's memo is a typed document; and as everybody knows, every typewriter has a unique signature. So all you have to do is find other documents typed on the same machine (or machines, even) used by Sandell to type his memo to prove that he wrote it (or near enough, anyway)

I suggest you ask the NOTW if you can have a rummage through their old correspondence to see if you can find any proof.

I don't personally hold out much hope that you'll find anything to demonstrate forgery, but hey, it's your crusade.

[Trevor Marriott]

Regarding the Express letter, I spelt out quite clearly and in great detail my stance on it back in post 473 and earlier in post 382, although my comments on it were completely ignored. This was after Adam put it up initially in post 354.
I have stated a few times that it is the best document produced so far that suggests that the Marginalia contained the Kosminski name in 1981. Although I seem to be the first person to realise this, including Adam, who didn’t include it in his Ripperologist article!
This thread is the first time it has been seen by a wider audience, and it is only just now, 300 posts later has the penny dropped – so I need no late in the day lectures on its potential importance.

However I repeat my stance that on its own, and in the face of other unanswered questions, the Express letter is not enough to authenticate the Marginalia.

It is no good caricaturing what I have said.
I do not seriously dispute the authenticity of any of the signed letters on company headed notepaper.
I recognise that forging these documents is of a different magnitude from, for example, Jim Swanson simply re writing one of his own letters.
I feel I have to explain everything now in case someone deliberately misconstrues. So…
I did not just accuse Jim Swanson of forging his letters. I mentioned it as an example to compare the relative difficulties of two types of forgery.

But if we are examining the possibility that someone may have faked some or part of the Marginalia, and if we wish to eliminate Jim Swanson from that accusation, then using his own letters, which he could potentially have written at any time, is utterly useless.
This is so obvious that I should not even have to say it. It is like asking someone to alibi themselves.
In short, if he faked the Marginalia, where he would have had to mimic his grandfather’s handwriting, then then how much easier would it have been to re-write a few of his own letters in order to create a paper trail?

But let’s return to those signed letters on headed notepaper.
None of them refer to the suspect – apart from the Express letter and they did not see the Marginalia.
The signed letter on Sandell’s personal headed notepaper doesn’t refer to the suspect either.
The unheaded and unsigned memo, that turned up at Scotland Yard Crime Museum in unexplained circumstances does refer to the suspect though.
So the very worst document in terms of provenance is the one that mentions the suspect (excluding the Express item).

Adam

In your ‘Ripperologist’ article you mentioned a letter that Jim Swanson sent to Charles Nevin dated 9th October 1987.
Any chance of putting that up? I’ll tell you why.

I quote from your article:
On 9 October 1987 Jim wrote again to Charles Nevin, revealing he had found more papers belonging to his grandfather.
These referred to Donald Swanson being placed in overall charge of the Ripper case. The papers also recorded a list of victims and alleged victims, as well as the attack on Annie Farmer.
and
Interestingly, it’s clear from Charles Sandell’s internal memo that Jim had shown the same documents to the News of the World reporter, so this was far from a new discovery six years later in 1987.

So in 1987 Jim Swanson claimed to have found various other documents (these are currently lost I understand). But the information in these documents was included in the 1981 article that turned up at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum.
Was Jim Swanson gilding the lily in telling Charles Nevin he had just found these documents? Or was the 1981 unused article actually written after 1987?
Either way it would be helpful to see Jim Swanson’s letter to Charles Nevin so readers could make up their own minds on that one.

I referred to the two emails from Charles Nevin and Martin Fido as it is suggested that they were wrong in remembering that the Anderson letter was not glued in place in 1987.

Is there anything else to back up Fido and Nevin? Well yes!
In his unpublished letter to the Telegraph that must have been written after 27th October 1987 Jim Swanson wrote:
‘My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.’
Why did he say 1910? Clearly because this was the year the book was published. So he must have known in 1987 that the book was published in 1910 and not 1905, the date on the letter that was later stuck over the Fred dedication.

I have also stated – but will repeat it as a lot seems to get washed over – that I doubt any additions were made to the Marginalia prior to 1981.

Jenni
In case you haven’t noticed I haven’t made any accusations against anyone – much to some people’s annoyance.

It should also be noted that when he made the above quote he also stated that at that time Donald Swanson was not suffering from any signs of shaky writing or any illness which might have caused such and affliction.

So all in all Jim Swansons actions, and comments do not help to prove or disprove the issues in question regarding the authenticity of the marginalia.

[Chris]

Is there anything else to back up Fido and Nevin? Well yes!
In his unpublished letter to the Telegraph that must have been written after 27th October 1987 Jim Swanson wrote:
‘My Grandfather’s notes were made in 1910 when he was 62.’
Why did he say 1910? Clearly because this was the year the book was published. So he must have known in 1987 that the book was published in 1910 and not 1905, the date on the letter that was later stuck over the Fred dedication.

If you look at the posts above, you'll see it's mentioned that Jim Swanson knew the correct date of publication in 1987. But obviously that doesn't mean the letter wasn't already glued in the book at that time.

The suggestion is simply that he had been misled in 1981 by the presence of the letter. He could have noticed the correct date of publication at any time between 1981 and 1987, even though the letter remained glued in the book.

[Chris]

It should also be noted that when he made the above quote he also stated that at that time Donald Swanson was not suffering from any signs of shaky writing or any illness which might have caused such and affliction.

Assuming you are referring to the unpublished letter to the Telegraph, it does not say Donald Swanson was "not suffering from any signs of shaky writing". It says nothing at all about his writing - only that he was in "complete command of all his faculties."

[Lechmere]

If someone is in complete command of all his faculties then it very strongly suggests that they have not got such bad shaking of the hands that it is noticeable in their writing and that they have to explain themselves twice in a letter to a grandson. That grandson being the brother of the person who thought their grandfather was in "complete command of all his faculties."

Sally
In the heat of exchanges it is always possible that a sloppy remark may be made, but I certainly don’t think I have suggested that all newly discovered historical documents should be or are routinely and rigorously examined.
The vast majority will be of no controversy and will not be offered for sale.
There are however certain niche areas where forgeries or faked historical artefacts almost predominate – Confederate items for instance – or Nazi memorabilia.
The Ripper world is unfortunately also such a niche market, albeit one where less items tend to become available.

We have been told that at last one offer of £20,000 was made for the Swanson Collection – that is a reasonable sum – even if you affect to be sceptical about what money is available in Ripperology.

I have been in many different types of archives – all are well kept and maintained.
I have never requested a document that is not there (although it probably happens sometimes) nor requested a document and found parts missing or other items stuck where they shouldn’t be. In the public areas I have not seen papers stuck in cabinets.
I have worked for large bureaucratic organisations with miles and miles of paperwork – and it is invariably well kept. Some organisations are better than others this is true. It is also besides the point.

The point is that trust should not be placed in a document of doubtful provenance, and it should not be used to buttress another questioned document. It should actually put under the same level of scrutiny as the questioned document. If it passes then it can be used.
The Scotland Yard Crime Museum material has been accepted without question.
That is my point – it is very obviously a valid point.

Besides its provenance, the Crime Museum material is unsigned, it is typed as you pointed out, it isn’t on headed paper and there are three possibly questionable aspects to its content.
• A key expression is identical to that found in a Jim Swanson letter.
• There is the issue over the dedication in the front of the book and the evidence that the genuine Fred dedication was uncovered in 1987.
• There is the issue of the ‘newly discovered’ items that were referred to in October 1987 but made it into the 1981 material.

None of this proves that the Crime Museum items are forged but it should advise caution.
According to some people this is the key document in establishing that the Marginalia is genuine and yet they concurrently think it shouldn’t be subject to scrutiny.
Now that is remarkable.

PS I didn’t bother following your forgery for beginners link.

[Rubyretro]

Just a few comments....

Whenever I start thinking that I'm just wrong and there is nothing fishy about the Marginalia, then I just get some niggling worries and I'm just still not convinced....

One of those worries definitely is that the 1981 unpublished NOTW article clearly suggests that the book was a gift from Anderson in 1905. It is certain that the letter was not glued into the book in 1981 ( there are various witnesses) and the book was plainly inscribed 'from Fred'.

Was Jim blind as to the inscription ? And he knew in 1987 that the book was published in 1910.

Jim Swanson was quoted as saying that someone at the time had said it would be worth about
£7,000 and he had then insured it in that amount. Surely that 'someone' was a professional ? He was a businessman, I can't believe that he just took advice from any old person -wouldn't they surely have looked at the date of publication ? It was probably printed on the book.

I can't see how we can get around these worries. It makes me think that the NOTW article was written after 1987.

Then there is Mary Berkin -On a JTR Forums thread it was stated that she told her memory of the story by email. But she must have been in her 80s at least....is it likely that she used email ? Someone else must have written that mail. She was also quoted as remembering dinner time or high tea conversations from 1935 when she was ten or so and the adult children if Swanson were discussing his career - even Jeff Leahy said in a Swanson thread somewhere that childhood reminiscences were rubbish as evidence ( and I agree).

Then there is the fact that Jim certainly did draw in that book -he drew red lines- and 'why'? According to Neville “he liked to highlight
DSS’s achievements.” Just how many people would write in a book like that ?

As to the assertion that it is very difficult to forge something -yes it is, but some people can do it. What about all those fake papers fabricated in Colditz
for the escapers ? It is perfectly possible that Jim had an aptitude for it -he enjoyed tiny delicate work for starters.

[Rob Clack]

The anti marginallia brigade should read a couple of Ripper books from the 70s and 80s to get a better picture of things. Should surprise them a bit.

Rob

[Lechmere]

You will have to explain yourself Rob.
I checked the few pre 1987 books I have and could see no problems.

[Chris]

If someone is in complete command of all his faculties then it very strongly suggests that they have not got such bad shaking of the hands that it is noticeable in their writing and that they have to explain themselves twice in a letter to a grandson.

What it may or may not suggest is a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, the letter simply does not say what Trevor Marriott claimed.

Personally I think it's clear that the statement concerns the reliability of DSS's memory, and has nothing at all to do with the quality of his handwriting.

On the broader question, you seem to be assiduously questioning every single fact or document that doesn't fit in with your preconceptions. But you are only too eager to clutch uncritically at every statement that you see as helpful. Let's remember that we are dealing here with the recollections of a man in his mid-70s regarding his grandfather, who died when he was only 11 or 12. I'm not sure when he last saw his grandfather, but how likely is it that he would have even known whether his handwriting was shaky or not?

Against that we have contemporary written evidence that he did sometimes have a problem with his hand shaking when he was writing. If you wish, you can choose to believe on the basis of your peculiar interpretation of Jim Swanson's recollections that that evidence was faked, along with so much else. That's a matter for you.

[Chris]

One of those worries definitely is that the 1981 unpublished NOTW article clearly suggests that the book was a gift from Anderson in 1905. It is certain that the letter was not glued into the book in 1981 ( there are various witnesses) and the book was plainly inscribed 'from Fred'.

What is the evidence for this claim - and for your earlier claim that Jim Swanson was aware of the inscription from 'Fred'?

[Rubyretro]

The anti marginallia brigade should read a couple of Ripper books from the 70s and 80s to get a better picture of things. Should surprise them a bit.

Rob

Firstly, I have. Secondly, please explain exactly why this has a bearing on the argument -in detail.

[AdamNeilWood]

Then there is Mary Berkin -On a JTR Forums thread it was stated that she told her memory of the story by email. But she must have been in her 80s at least....is it likely that she used email ? Someone else must have written that mail.

Yes, Mary has the ability to send email. Using her iPad. Sorry if that ruins your vision of a muddled old lady who doesn't understand how to turn a computer on.

That really is the final straw. Adios.

[Rob Clack]

Firstly, I have. Secondly, please explain exactly why this has a bearing on the argument -in detail.

In detail! Would you like diagrams as well?
Try Rumbelow (early edition) and then Beggs the Uncensored Facts.
It doesn't matter what I say. People will only see what they want to see.

Rob

[Rubyretro]

In detail! Would you like diagrams as well?
Try Rumbelow (early edition) and then Beggs the Uncensored Facts.
It doesn't matter what I say. People will only see what they want to see.

Rob

I have that Rumbelow book, thank you. You haven't explained what difference that would make.