Private sale

[Chris]

But your right, lying is a point against someone's credibilty, which is why its intersting I'm still listening to you, when you admitted, you lied about the test you had Dr Simpson, a self proclaimed unqualified person on the document.

And not a doctor, as far as I can see from her online biographies.

[Rob Clack]

Sad reality of todays Ripperology Rob,

No morals, no sense of decency and now no evidence is required to accuse. However when evidence is there, it is called a witch hunt and bullying.

Its a mad crazy f@cked up world my friend.

Monty

Unfortunately a sign of the times.

Rob

[Rubyretro]

I have to say that I think that the annotations by DSS were done at two different dates anyway. I don't think that they were all forged at all -just a bit added in ( the name Kosminski for one thing).

[Robert]

"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."
(Lechmere post 696)

Yes, forgers are always careful to give themselves away by using identical expressions.

[Robert]

Ruby, what else do you think was added?

[Chris]

I have to say that I think that the annotations by DSS were done at two different dates anyway. I don't think that they were all forged at all -just a bit added in ( the name Kosminski for one thing).

Please will you answer my question above?

You claimed there was clear evidence that in 1981 the letter was not glued into the book. You also claimed that Jim Swanson was aware of the inscription from 'Fred'.

Please can you quote the evidence for these claims?

[Rubyretro]

Sad reality of todays Ripperology Rob,

No morals, no sense of decency and now no evidence is required to accuse. However when evidence is there, it is called a witch hunt and bullying.

Its a mad crazy f@cked up world my friend.

Monty

Hi Monty, hope you are well ?

I can tell you that I do have morals, and a sense of decency ! I wouldn't accuse anyone without having a genuine suspicion about the Marginalia, and I felt that after reading the Ripperologist article, and without knowing that other people had already raised concerns and accused it of being forged.

I am very interested to know what your opinion is on the glued in letter and the fact that the NOTW article appears to allude to it ( the mention of Anderson and the date 1905 can't be a coincidence), yet Jim Swanson undeniably knew that the book was published in 1910, and must have known that the book was inscribed from 'Fred' ? What is your explanation for that ?

I'm not saying that that is the only fishy detail, but it's a big sticking point for me.

[The Good Michael]

I suspect one of my Japanese neighbors smokes pot on occasion. I have no evidence. I just suspect. I think it's best that I shut up about it.

Mike

[Ally]

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."

Complete and utter bullshit. I am one hundred percent in command of my mental faculties, and due to a reason I don't feel pressed to go into, I often, though not always have shakiness in my right hand that affects not only my writing, but my ability to hold objects. So you are absolutely one hundred percent wrong. I have often been out to dinner and felt the need to explain why I am having to grasp a fork like a two year old in my fist, or keep dropping or having to use my left hand to guide food onto it - because you feel like an imbecile for not being able to grasp and use something correctly, but that does not mean your faculties are in fact impaired.

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.

This is more BS. You have stated that the sole reason to doubt the support documents is how they were found, without anyone knowing how they got there, which suggests, and as I have already pointed out that you think every piece of paper in the crime museum has an impeccable paper trail and this one's absence is somehow noteworthy. Which it is not.

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 bet that sum was by Patricia Cornwell, who as has also been pointed out once spent 4 million on paintings she destroyed. So that can't really be a fair indicator of its value. I may be wrong about the P.C offer, but until I am told otherwise, that's my assumption.

I have been in many different types of archives – all are well kept and maintained.

Have you ever been in the Crime Museum? Then your point is irrelevant.

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.

So if I find a key expression in one of your posts arguing a topic that is identical to one of Trevor Marriott's have I proved you two are one and the same?

As has already been pointed out to you, Jim Swanson wrote to Sandell to convince him to run the article, and Sandell was writing to his editors to convince them. It is not a leap to think he would take the good argument presented and flip it back.

[Fisherman]

I suspect one of my Japanese neighbors smokes pot on occasion. I have no evidence. I just suspect. I think it's best that I shut up about it.

Mike

Tell me, Mike - why do you suspect that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

I am very interested to know what your opinion is on the glued in letter and the fact that the NOTW article appears to allude to it ( the mention of Anderson and the date 1905 can't be a coincidence), yet Jim Swanson undeniably knew that the book was published in 1910, and must have known that the book was inscribed from 'Fred' ?

Again, assuming you are referring to 1981, why is it "undeniable" that Jim Swanson knew the correct date of publication? If you have evidence, fair enough, but if you don't, then he may not have known the date.

And why "must" he have known the book was inscribed from "Fred"? (Previously you said simply "Jim Swanson knew that the book was inscribed from 'Fred'".) That depends on when the letter was stuck over the inscription, doesn't it?

[Sally]

Edward.

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.

No? My mistake then.

The vast majority will be of no controversy and will not be offered for sale.

True enough. The documents under discussion are in fact ‘of no controversy’ either as far as I can see; other than that you and a few others make that claim.

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.

#

Nonsense. ‘The Ripper world’ as you put it, is certainly a niche market; but is not comparable with your examples above because there is considerably less interest – far less interest – in Ripperology than there is in either of the above; and thus, I’m afraid, the motivation for fraudulent activities also goes downhill. I mean, why would you bother?

Ah, you’re about to tell me…

We have been told that at least 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.

Gee, 20K. Well, yes, that’s certainly sufficient to warrant a forgery with the sophistication and complexity of the Hitler Diaries, eh? Except without the established forger or the financial payoff, of course.

Do you seriously think that anybody in their right mind would go to all the trouble and effort of forging, not only the handwritten marginalia – which, in spite of your evident belief to the contrary – would be really pretty difficult to accomplish with any degree of conviction under scrutiny; but also to forge all the supporting documents that suggest the marginalia is genuine as well; with the risk of criminal conviction if discovered – for 20k? Sure, it’s a reasonable sum – but do you really think it warrants such a high-risk strategy? Oh, but I was forgetting, there’s family reputation to consider as well, right? Well, if the forgery was discovered (as it usually is) that would be that out of the window, wouldn’t it?

None of your reasoning here stands up to even minor scrutiny.

If the whole thing is an elaborate and cunning forgery, I hope that somebody will be able to explain why on earth it doesn’t even deliver the goods.

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.

No. I didn’t say that you would request a document that wasn’t there, Ed. No, because, you see, if you look for what you want on an online catalogue – as pretty much all your local repositories have these days - and you find it, that means that it’s been catalogued, doesn’t it? I said that there was a lot of uncatalogued stuff out there. In public areas you won’t see uncatalogued material or papers stuffed in cabinets - obviously. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you ever get the chance to go behind the scenes, see what you find there, if you can bear the terrible shock of discovery, that is.

Sorry, Ed, but the ideal world of historic document retention that you seem to envisage doesn’t exist in reality. This isn’t to throw rocks at those involved – no: it’s simply an unavoidable fact of life for various reasons that are irrelevant to this discussion.

And the point is that documents that are unrecorded and unaccounted for turn up frequently. It isn’t unusual. However that suits your argument for ‘suspicion’ regarding Sandell’s memo; there it is.

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.

But Ed, as outlined above, these documents are only ‘questioned’ by you and a couple of others because you insist that they are. The Sandell Memo doesn’t have a ‘doubtful’ provenance – that’s just your spin. It has an unknown provenance. Not the same thing

Unless you’re prepared to put your money where your mouth is and actually seek to have these documents tested; what on earth is the point of pursuing this line of argument?

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.

Sigh…

Alright, Ed.

I’ll address your points about Sandell’s memo.

the Crime Museum material is unsigned

Tell me why it should be signed? Do you not see that it is obviously, and unquestionably a draft? Who signs a draft? Do you sign a draft? There’s your explanation, right there.

it isn’t on headed paper

Why would a draft be on headed paper? A draft wouldn’t be on headed paper. There you are – Simple.

it is typed as you pointed out

Yes - I note that Jim Swanson’s correspondence isn't typed. Tell me, Ed, if Jim Swanson forged Sandell’s memo – which is implicit in your allusion above to the phrase repeated in Sandell’s memo alone – why do you think that his correspondence wasn’t typed? It’s all handwritten. Where did he get the typewriter to forge Sandell's memo from then? If he had one, why didn’t he use it to write his letters?

As to this ‘key expression’ – well, what do you think, Ed? You think if Jim Swanson had forged the memo he’d have used the same phrase twice? So on the one hand this forger is so clever and sophisticated that he conducts a high level fraud, even covering all his bases by forging supporting documents for his original forgery (in fact, he'd make Kujau look like a rank amateur) but on the other hand, he’s sufficiently inept to use virtually the same phrase in documents purporting to originate from two separate sources? Are you serious?

Evidently – evidently, Ed, Sandell referred to correspondence from Swanson when he wrote his memo. Therein lies your explanation.

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.

Nah – it certainly should, if only to put an end to this idiocy. Go for it, find yourself somebody who’s willing to take your money to compare Sandell’s memo with other NOTW correspondence of a similar date. Typewriters are unique, Ed, each individual one; somebody out there ought to be able to tell you whether the machines used to write the Memo were in the NOTW office at the time. See what they say.

And if you can find a reputable professional to tell you that the Sandell memo was faked I’ll be astonished.

[The Good Michael]

Tell me, Mike - why do you suspect that?

The best,
Fisherman

I have only conjecture and no real proof...for example, he looked tired today. Also, when he got in his car, I saw him put something in the glove compartment. I can only say what I believe, but have nothing to show anyone. It's best I just leave it alone.

Mike

[Chris]

Regarding the draft article in the Crime Museum, a rather obvious point is that they would have treated items formally deposited there very differently from ordinary correspondence. When I was at the Crime Museum I was shown an inventory of the Swanson items made when they were deposited there. Subsequently I sent the curator some biographical notes on Aaron Kozminski for his interest. I'd be amazed if he made a formal record of what I had sent him and filed it among the records of exhibits. No doubt it would just have been filed among correspondence. The same would presumably have been done if a copy of the draft article had been sent to the curator for his interest. I don't understand what is considered strange about there not being a formal record of its arrival.

[Robert]

Of course, we all know that the one thing that nobody puts in the glove compartment, is a glove. So that's one innocent explanation ruled out. I believe we are homing in on it.