Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

'Pirate'

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

Far be it from me to 'postulate the thought processes of others' but it may have something to do with one of them being 'unable' to post here.

I have now been accused of being paranoid for thinking like this but I am comforted by the fact that several others have commented upon 'Pirate' and his 'alter ego' both of whom write completely different posts under the same name.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m sorry Stewart but this is just ridiculous paranoia.

There is NO truth in what you are implying. None what so ever.

If my posts seem to you a little erratic that’s probably because some are bashed out while I’m working in a hurry while others I cross reference from my books.

If you have something to say to Paul, go and do so on JTr forums. To my knowledge neither Paul or I are ban from posting on either sites, we simply prefer posting where we post. I can always catch up with Paul down the pub because as you well know we are neighboiurs. However these silly accusations are not worthy of you and do nothing in the cause of debate.

Not that much of anything new has been contributed. And now we have Chris on another one of his silly ‘you have an apostrophe in the wrong place debates.

Get real

Yours Jeff

[Monty]

Stewart!

Surely not.

[Tom_Wescott]

Its time to quit before that idiot Wescott appears.

See, just the mere idea of me appearing chases the crazies away. I should charge for this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

And now we have Chris on another one of his silly ‘you have an apostrophe in the wrong place debates.

Jeff, that's sheer nonsense. You know perfectly well that the point I'm making has nothing to do with your punctuation, or with "semantics".

You said that the "only striking difference" between the opinions of the two experts was that the second one qualified his opinion with the word "probably". But a short time later you said that you weren't in a position to say what the difference was between their opinions, because you hadn't seen the reports!

How can you expect anyone to take seriously what you say, when you behave like that?

[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!

However the basic FACT remains that ‘in all probability Swanson wrote it….and not a bunch of teenagers as suggested by Colin …

I will thank you to discontinue your misrepresentation of the hypothetical scenario that I have proposed.

A "reasonable" scenario that is indeed a … possibility:

- Sometime in 1891-1892, 'Father' tells young Donald (Jim Swanson's father), who is 12 or 13 at the time, that he has recently helped to identify 'Jack the Ripper': Someone named 'Kosminski', who was not arrested and accordingly charged with 'murder', but was instead sent to a workhouse in the East End, and then to the asylum in Colney Hatch.

- Sometime in 1893-1894, 'Father' tells young James, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1896-1897, 'Father' tells young Ada, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1899-1900, 'Father' tells young Douglas, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1901-1902, 'Father' tells young Alice, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime after Donald Swanson's death, in 1924, two or three of his 'children' decide to scribble a few notes in one of his favorite books, in order to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

While this hypothetical scenario may seem somewhat … unlikely; it is indeed "reasonable".

What the 'Polish Jew' theorists cannot seem to grasp, is the simple fact that this scenario - were it (or any variant thereof) to be a reality - would lend infinitely more credence to the content of the margin/end notes, i.e. the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia', than would any conceivable amount of "scholarly" foot-stomping insistence that the notes are of genuine provenance, because … one says so.

I have not, in any way, shape or form, suggested a scenario, in which the 'Swanson Marginalia' was written by … "teenagers"!

Either you realize as much - in which case, you are trying to antagonize me – or you are too stupid to realize as much!

… a ficticious senario posted by Colin in which he imagines Donald Swansons children forging the marginalia. A rather homourous speculation …

I do not consider the scenario to be remotely … humorous!

It is an unlikely, but quite reasonable hypothetical scenario that flies in the face of your relentless insistence that …

No one has ever come up with a reasonable argument who, where, when or why the Marginalia might have been a hoax.

You are completely incapable of giving the scenario an honest and meaningful appraisal!

So why don't you just 'leave it out'?

The only humorous aspect of this nonsense is your assumption that anyone should – and for that matter, does – take you seriously.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, that's sheer nonsense. You know perfectly well that the point I'm making has nothing to do with your punctuation, or with "semantics".

You said that the "only striking difference" between the opinions of the two experts was that the second one qualified his opinion with the word "probably". But a short time later you said that you weren't in a position to say what the difference was between their opinions, because you hadn't seen the reports!

How can you expect anyone to take seriously what you say, when you behave like that?

As you well no Chris neither reports have been published in full. I was of course refering to what is known ie that the first expert examiner concluded that the writing was Swansons. Where as the second report can only be referenced, to my knowledge, by the press report and is NOT the entire report., I even did the courtesy of reproducing that press report.

But apparently nothing is good enough for you unless every minute detail has been properly cross referenced.

As this ground has been cover a number of times by most people posting, I just naturally assumed that you might contact your brain a fill in the odd gap instead of being spoon fed.

Pirate

P.S. As predicted we now have Tom the storm crow, flapping for scraps. i really do blame stinky Colin for this.

[Jeff Leahy]

Actually Colin nothing could be further from the truth.

However, I had pretty much a gut feeling that tackling your hypothetical scenario would stir up a hornet’s nest. And I’ve been proved correct.

That said, I simply don’t buy your scenario, as I am totally convinced that Donald Swanson wrote the marginalia.

That’s not to say that I would not be happy to debate with your ideas which are always worthy of consideration and I hope you will foregive my sometimes sledge hammer sarcastic humour.

I simply find your scenario highly improbable. For me the simplest and most obvious conclusion is always the most probable. Ie Swanson wrote it.

However I am most upset if I have caused you offence in any way, that was not my intention. I always find your posts most interesting and worthy of serious consideration.

Perhaps over a pint when you’re next in London

Sorry about any offence

Jeff

[Septic Blue]

However I am most upset if I have caused you offence in any way, that was not my intention. I always find your posts most interesting and worthy of serious consideration.

Perhaps over a pint when you’re next in London

Sorry about any offence

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff

As long as it's not the 'Queen's Head' or the 'Boleyn', on Green Street, it will be my pleasure!

[Chris]

Jeff

All this amounts to is that as you haven't read either report, you are - self-evidently - not in a position to say what the differences were between the opinions of the two examiners.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

All this amounts to is that as you haven't read either report, you are - self-evidently - not in a position to say what the differences were between the opinions of the two examiners.

Chris the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=328Q79GoR7g

What it amounts to is that no one on planet earth have read the reports because, self evidently, they have never been published in full.
As we have all established many times.

Only a blithing idiot would continue with this line of argument on the basis that someone else has failed to put a full stop, an apostrophe or a correctly grammatically constructed phrase, in the correct position?

What we clearly have here, metaphorically speeking, is some beans.

Pirate

PS thanks for making me laugh, absolutely priceless. Many thanks Chris the Bulldrick

[Jeff Leahy]

Thanks, Jeff

As long as it's not the 'Queen's Head' or the 'Boleyn', on Green Street, it will be my pleasure!

Anywhere is cool bye me. I;m just grateful I havent pissed off the only person on casebook with any musical nowse.

I've never understood why anyone would want to spend time having a pint with someone, discussing things that they both agree with?

There is always a spare room here in Kent or on the boat.

Jeff

PS. I have also followed your posts on geographical profiling, But must confess i that I do not understand, or at least cant quite grasp, what you are going on about. So it will need to be more than one pint.

[Septic Blue]

There is always a spare room here in Kent or on the boat.

Many Thanks, Jeff

I have also followed your posts on geographical profiling, But must confess i that I do not understand, or at least cant quite grasp, what you are going on about. So it will need to be more than one pint.

As many as need be!

[Chris]

What it amounts to is that no one on planet earth have read the reports because, self evidently, they have never been published in full. As we have all established many times.

Can you really not grasp the point I'm making?

It's simply this. If you haven't read the reports, you are not in a position to tell us - as you tried to do yesterday - what the difference between those reports is.

Surely that is indisputable?

[Jeff Leahy]

Can you really not grasp that no one has read the reports.

Not I, not you, not the creatures of the indus.

I was therefore referencing what is known about the reports.

Which is:

A) It was written by Swanson

B) 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.”

As it is improbable that any other great bombshell is contained within said reports this is probably all we will ever know unless they are published in full. However the simple over riding fact is that in all probability the writing is Swanson’s.

However Chris Philips has decided to turn another thread into a discussion about GRAMATICAL construction.

You should have prefixed your comment with 'what is known' about the report.

Well I didn’t because I simply assumed that everyone was aware of the fact that the entirety of the reports haven’t been published. Its obvious, it has been discussed endlessly. And I provided the information that was required.

It is precisely your draw dropping stupidity over nit picking grammatical detail, that makes casual chat on the internet about a fictitious or imagined scenario, almost impossible.

If you’re past form is anything to go by you will continue to argue the toss, endlessly, digging away at the smallest apostrophe, spelling or misplaced word. While the bigger picture simply flies you by.

I believe Khrushchev once stated; “The dog barks the wind blows the caravan moves on.”

Lets pray the dog again stops barking.

Pirate