Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

This may sound like a quibble, but it doesn't necessarily have to be independent, surely? If Anderson was at the Home, and saw and heard these things, and if Swanson was ditto, then there would be independent corroboration. Or, if some other officer(s) who was present at the ID subsequently told both Anderson and Swanson, then that would be two pieces of independent evidence at least as concerns what the officer said about the ID. But how do we know that Swanson wasn't simply following Anderson, or vice versa?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Robert

Sorry if I was not being clear. What I meant was corroborated that a STORY of Identification existed.

So even if Anderson was not present at the identification and gained all his information from Swanson it would appear that he was not lying about or inventing such an event or at least the report of it..

It surely must have happened unless the very unlikely scenario that Swanson made it up? And I think it unlikely that Anderson would have made it up and lied to Swanson as the Marginalia appears to correct Anderson’s errors

But as you say they need not both have witnessed the event. All I am saying is that something occurred and both men appear to have knowledge of it.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Annotations

I used the word PROBABLY because that was the word I required.
And while the annotations MAY have been written some time later there is also the possibility that they were written later on the same day when the author was tiered or simply had a drink. As you well know an exact estimation of the time lapse between annotations has not been given.
My theatrical use of the ‘collapse of British History’ was intended as a humorous response to a scenario that involved teenagers creating the Marginalia in order to save Daddy’s reputation. Clearly if the provenance and authenticity of every historical document from Magna-Carter onwards were called into question it would greatly alter our perceptions of what was.
I was NOT suggesting that a Criminal Record was a prerequisite for fakery, I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence to suggest that the people named in the scenario had any criminal record or convictions, and thus was establishing their ‘good characters’. Which is fair game for any defending Barrister in a hypothetical scenario.
As you well know the above A to Z quote was made before the results of the second examination. However the most important fact is that both handwriting experts confirmed that the writing was in all probability made by D S Swanson.
Therefore in matters relating to the supposed ID I think it fair, in the context of this thread, to state that Andersons claims in the book ‘The Lighter side of my official Life” about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson.
All the best
Pirate

Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.

That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.

Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.

The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.

The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.

[Septic Blue]

... a scenario that involved teenagers creating the Marginalia in order to save Daddy’s reputation.

Teenagers at the time of the 1901 census; and teenagers still, at the time of "Daddy's" death, in 1924.

You are as obtuse as your little monkey side-kick!

[Jeff Leahy]

“Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.”

Do I detect a touch of paranoia? Paul has made it clear that he is available for comment on JtRforums. I have absolutely no idea how he has choosen to address the subject in the new A to Z.
I choose my words carefully precisely to avoid a silly quarrel based on samantics.

“That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.”

“What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors.
It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”

Yes fair comment. But the exact period of time is not stated, and one must assume a rather difficult thing to be precise upon.

‘Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.’

No its called wit. And the comments clearly related to a ficticious senario posted by Colin in which he imagines Donald Swansons children forging the marginalia. A rather homourous speculation that I choose to reply to with humour. It is simply wild speculation with no evidence to back it up.

“The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.”

I assume that a copy of the marginalia was sent to an expert, and that that expert was happy to give his expert opinion on the hand writing based on information received. If that expert claimed it was ‘Swansons’ then one must presume that the information at that time was correct.
Another expert examines the original some years later and gives a more detail report. Still stating it was proably written by Swanson.

I believe Paul gave a detail explination on JtRforums. However the basic FACT remains that ‘in all probability Swanson wrote it….and not a bunch of teenagers as suggested by Colin and to which I was replying.

‘The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.”

Yes this is a point you have raised before. And at the last conference. On each occasion I have agreed it is a very valid point and that I am in agreement with YOU.

However it does not change my basic premise that Anderson was not Lying or making the episode up. Something happened and Swanson and Anderson both seem aware of the situation.

All the best
Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

No, Not Paranoia

“Thank you Paul, sorry, 'Pirate'. To address your points. I am pleased to see that you are using the more correct 'probably' rather than the incorrect 'confirmed'. Some progress here.”

Do I detect a touch of paranoia? Paul has made it clear that he is available for comment on JtRforums. I have absolutely no idea how he has choosen to address the subject in the new A to Z.
I choose my words carefully precisely to avoid a silly quarrel based on samantics.
“That the annotations may have been written at a much later date is allowed for by the fact that the deterioration in the writing may have been due to an illness suffered in later life. The implication is that the 'some time after' was years after rather than a shorter period of time.”
“What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors.
It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”
Yes fair comment. But the exact period of time is not stated, and one must assume a rather difficult thing to be precise upon.
‘Oh, you were being theatrical, sorry I thought you were being serious. Obviously the question of previous character has no bearing on the matter in question here, and I was not even suggesting fakery, I was calling you out on some, quite frankly, very odd comments.’
No its called wit. And the comments clearly related to a ficticious senario posted by Colin in which he imagines Donald Swansons children forging the marginalia. A rather homourous speculation that I choose to reply to with humour. It is simply wild speculation with no evidence to back it up.
“The quote in the A-Z was indeed made before the second examination, some 15 years before, but that is not the point. It incorrectly stated that "...the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner", thus leading people to think, for many years, that there were no obvious points to question about the notes.”

I assume that a copy of the marginalia was sent to an expert, and that that expert was happy to give his expert opinion on the hand writing based on information received. If that expert claimed it was ‘Swansons’ then one must presume that the information at that time was correct.
Another expert examines the original some years later and gives a more detail report. Still stating it was proably written by Swanson.
I believe Paul gave a detail explination on JtRforums. However the basic FACT remains that ‘in all probability Swanson wrote it….and not a bunch of teenagers as suggested by Colin and to which I was replying.
‘The idea 'that Anderson's claims in the book The Lighter Side of My Official Life about an identification appear to be corroborated independently by D S Swanson' simply isn't an unqualified conclusion. Just as easily all Anderson's original information on the identification could have come from Swanson in the first place (as did just about all his information on the investigation). Therefore when Swanson read the account all those years later he may well have corrected and added to what Anderson had written rather than corroborating information that Anderson possessed independently.”

Yes this is a point you have raised before. And at the last conference. On each occasion I have agreed it is a very valid point and that I am in agreement with YOU.
However it does not change my basic premise that Anderson was not Lying or making the episode up. Something happened and Swanson and Anderson both seem aware of the situation.
All the best
Pirate

No, not paranoia, it's just that I'm never sure whether I am debating with the chauffeur or his passenger.

Yes, indeed, it does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. I have not suggested that they were not probably in Swanson's hand. The changes certainly could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration. A very relevant consideration. Do not presume to tell me about Victorian handwriting, I have dozens of Victorian letters in my collection. The report certainly will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case - something that the A-Z entry - "Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner" did not allow for, because the problems with the writing had been missed. And this blind acceptance stood for many years.

Sorry, I can never tell with you whether it is wit or something else.

As I have stated in the past, in the original 'examination' only photocopies of a sample of Swanson's handwriting and the marginalia were sent to the expert - and no such expert, to my knowledge, would ever make a conclusive and proper examination of the handwriting in this way. Indeed, that is obviously why he didn't pick up on the differences found in the recent examination. Until that original expert's report is published we will never know exactly what he said.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m sorry but I do not understand what you are saying here.

How could they possibly have fore seen the comments made by a different expert examiner some 15 years after the first?

Especially given that the only striking difference in their two expert conclusions is the word ‘Probably’

You state that no expert examiner would work from a photocopy ‘However it would appear that this one DID. So clearly there was either different procedure at the time or expert opinion on this matter is divided. Either way the expert in the original analysis must have been happy to work from a photocopy or he would not have given a professional opinion based on one.

It just seems more likely to me that such procedure and practice has changed over a period of time.. I do not see anything sinister or underhand in that. Just natural progression and the fact that the second examiner had better access than the first to the document.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Examination

I'm sure that you do understand.

What a crass statement, it's nothing to do with foreseeing what an expert was going to say some 15 years later. It is all to do with getting it properly examined in the first place. And if I could spot the differences on first sight of the book I am surprised that others didn't. But they didn't and points that should have been addressed back in 1988 simply weren't. And everyone was none the wiser until recently.

I'm afraid that I am unable to say what 'the only striking difference in their two expert conclusions' was as I have never seen the original report. However, I would have thought that the fact that the second set of writing, on the endpaper, may have been affected by age or infirmity, thus casting doubt on its accuracy and relevance, was the most striking difference in conclusions.

What I have stated is that no expert examiner would ever make a conclusive and proper examination of the handwriting using only photocopies. What opinion, or conclusion, and on what basis (it all sounds rather casual to me), the first examiner came to is unknown as his report (or was it just a letter?) has never been published.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm sure that you do understand.

A chauffeurs lot has few rewards.

What a crass statement, it's nothing to do with foreseeing what an expert was going to say some 15 years later. It is all to do with getting it properly examined in the first place. And if I could spot the differences on first sight of the book I am surprised that others didn't. But they didn't and points that should have been addressed back in 1988 simply weren't. And everyone was none the wiser until recently.

Yes I’m sure your correct and hindsight is a wonderful thing. To my knowledge the 'passenger' or Wizard of OZ or however you wish to address him, has posted on Jtr forums on the subject. and thats the best place to address your questions.

However my understanding is that a number of people also looked at the document and failed to notice the colour difference.

I'm afraid that I am unable to say what 'the only striking difference in their two expert conclusions' was as I have never seen the original report. However, I would have thought that the fact that the second set of writing, on the endpapers, may have been affected by age or infirmity, thus casting doubt on its accuracy and relevance, was the most striking difference in conclusions.

I couldn’t say either, not having seen either report in their interiority. You have me at a disadvantage on the second. However from the little I can ascertain both reports suggest the probability that they were written by Swanson.

What I have stated is that no expert examiner would ever make a conclusive and proper examination of the handwriting using only photocopies. What opinion, or conclusion, and on what basis (it all sounds rather casual to me), the first examiner came to is unknown as his report (or was it just a letter?) has never been published.

Clearly the expert in question felt able, on what was provided, to draw the conclusion that it was Swanson’s. I also gather that he correctly concluded that it was NOT Swanson's when originally sent the wrong handwriting sample.

But apart from that I know no more than you.

Pirate

PS It was rather prophetic when I said I was going to regret answering Colin's senario. Its time to quit before that idiot Wescott appears. And I'm now off for my evening constitutional...

__________________

[Chris]

I couldn’t say [what 'the only striking difference in their two expert conclusions' was] either, not having seen either report in their interiority.

Crikey, Jeff, you just did say - only two posts ago!

[Jeff Leahy]

samantic alert

I think we all know none of the reports have been published in full.

Now I really must fly..

[Stewart P Evans]

Hindsight?

I'm sure that you do understand.

A chauffeurs lot has few rewards.
Yes I’m sure your correct and hindsight is a wonderful thing. To my knowledge the 'passenger' or Wizard of OZ or however you wish to address him, has posted on Jtr forums on the subject. and thats the best place to address your questions.
However my understanding is that a number of people also looked at the document and failed to notice the colour difference.
I couldn’t say either, not having seen either report in their interiority. You have me at a disadvantage on the second. However from the little I can ascertain both reports suggest the probability that they were written by Swanson.
Clearly the expert in question felt able, on what was provided, to draw the conclusion that it was Swanson’s. I also gather that he correctly concluded that it was NOT Swanson's when originally sent the wrong handwriting sample.
But apart from that I know no more than you.
Pirate
__________________

I'm sure.

What has it got to do with hindsight? I was as satisfied as everyone else with the A-Z entry on the 'marginalia', until I realised proper testing hadn't been done and I saw the book for myself.

Obviously the 'people' who saw the actual book (were there that many?) didn't see fit to take a proper look.

As a serving police officer I dealt with a few cases of questioned documents and Home Office forensic examination of the same. This examination and testing was always stringent, subject to many rules and little different from today. Although an examiner, if asked, might take a look at a couple of samples of photocopies of handwriting and say, yes, in my opinion they are written in the same hand I am sure that if he knew his conclusion was to be questioned or debated he would insist on seeing the actual samples.

But, then, here, I am not suggesting that a different person wrote them, am I? I am saying that they were not properly examined in the first place and certain important aspects of that handwriting were missed and never addressed for over 15 years. That cannot be gainsaid.

[Chris]

Jeff

You admit that you don't in fact know the difference between the conclusions of the two examiners - even though you've told us, less than an hour before, what that difference was. And when someone points out the inconsistency, you say that's "semantics"?

Nothing could illustrate better the utter futility of trying to have any kind of sensible discussion with you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Chauffeur or Passenger?

Jeff
You admit that you don't in fact know the difference between the conclusions of the two examiners - even though you've told us, less than an hour before, what that difference was. And when someone points out the inconsistency, you say that's "semantics"?
Nothing could illustrate better the utter futility of trying to have any kind of sensible discussion with you.

Chris, I think the problem here is the one that I commented upon, you are actually dealing with two posters, the chauffeur and the passenger, hence the sometimes conflicting or anomalous answers.

[Chris]

Chris, I think the problem here is the one that I commented upon, you are actually dealing with two posters, the chauffeur and the passenger, hence the sometimes conflicting or anomalous answers.

If that's the case I just cannot fathom it. I cannot see any benefit in such an arrangement for anyone concerned.