Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Chris]

Its quite extraordinary , given the history of hoaxes and skulduggery that have dogged ripperology from the start,for anyone to expect us to believe the authenticity of some "suddenly discovered" marginalia and endnotes,which the owners claimed identified Jack the Ripper, no less! Really?
Moreover,this marginalia together with its curiously "mismatching "end notes somehow lay sleeping for nearly 100 years,only to miraculously "re- surface" in 1988 to happen to fortuitously coincide with the centenary of the 1888 Whitechapel murders .
And apparently,this "centenary find", consists of marginalia written in one pencil colour ,allegedly written by Swanson, followed by "endnotes" written in a fairly "mismatching" hand and with a definitely "mismatching" pencil!

But apparently the annotations were discovered, and the rights sold to the News of the World, in 1981, several years before the centenary and - perhaps more significantly - before Martin Fido's discovery of the records relating to Aaron Kozminski:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=73807&postcount=5

[Natalie Severn]

Its quite extraordinary , given the history of hoaxes and skulduggery that have dogged ripperology from the start,for anyone to expect us to believe the authenticity of some "suddenly discovered" marginalia and endnotes,which the owners claimed identified Jack the Ripper, no less! Really?
Moreover,this marginalia together with its curiously "mismatching "end notes somehow lay sleeping for nearly 100 years,only to miraculously "re- surface" in 1988 to happen to fortuitously coincide with the centenary of the 1888 Whitechapel murders .
And apparently,this "centenary find", consists of marginalia written in one pencil colour ,allegedly written by Swanson, followed by "endnotes" written in a fairly "mismatching" hand and with a definitely "mismatching" pencil!
Get real Jeff----please.

[Jeff Leahy]

Again your nit picking slightly.

The word probably is ‘physically used in the press report on the Davis report. Where as the A to Z does not ‘Physically’ include the word ‘probably’.

The fact that Totty could only give an expert opinion based on his experience and thus a ‘probably’, well that is agreed as a given.


One must assume that these guys are called in court to give their expert opinion in legal cases and that is how they are being defined as Experts? I don’t know if there is an official explanation of the word Expert or what qualifies.


But on the whole we appear in concordance.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Essentially I agree with that - except where you say "the word ‘probably’ doesn’t appear to have been used, as we have no mention of it, in ‘what is known’ in the Totty analysis".

But "what is known" in this case amounts to only half a dozen or so words in the "A to Z". There's no way we can conclude from that that Totty didn't use some word such as "probably" or "in all likelihood" or whatever. Indeed, if he was giving any sort of considered opinion, Totty must have expressed it as a probability rather than a certainty, because that is how document examiners do express their opinions, and there is no way he could be certain. No one could.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

The point is that it isn't humanly possible for anyone to identify handwriting with certainty. All document examiners can deal in is probability. As I've pointed out before, typically they use a nine-point scale to express the probability of two samples having been written by the same person. If Totty gave anything but the most informal, off-the-cuff opinion, he must have spoken in terms of the probability - not the certainty - of the writing being Swanson's, because no professional could do otherwise.

Ah now we are getting somewhere. Yes exactly.

Hand writing analysis is not an exact science but qualified opinion. And as I pointed out earlier in the thread the word ‘Expert’ is in itself a rather over used and a loaded expression.

I assume that both Totty and Davis spend most of their working career studying and looking at hand writing samples, and its is their experience that we are putting our trust in. I have no idea what makes them good or bad. Getting it wrong 1 out of 10? One in a hundred? One in a thousand?

But one must assume that there is an element of human error that must be considered so the prefix ‘probably’ seems a given whether we like it or not. Which is why I used the word probably in both cases. However the actual word itself only physically appears in ‘what is known’ about the Davis report’ while the word ‘probably’ doesn’t appear to have been used, as we have no mention of it, in ‘what is known’ in the Totty analysis.

But as you say ‘Hand writing analysis’ is not an exact science and therefore it is a given to presume ‘that in their expert opinion’ the writing is ‘PROBABLY’ Swanson’s.

And the BIG PICTURE here is very simple.

Two Handwriting experts have studied the Marginalia and conclude…using slightly different wording, that it matches D S Swanson.

The second made a series of caveat’s to cover himself over minor differences in the endnotes.

However you wish to look at it the most important and over riding factor is the fact that both experts put their expert opinion towards Swanson having written the Marginalia., in all probability.

Of course the exact wording by Davis and Totty have not been published but we have a fairly good idea what they concluded. And no amount of squirming or weaseled words changes the basic BIGGER PICTURE.

And it is my OPINION that if another expert examiner is contacted and given access, he will probably conclude that the marginalia is ‘PROBABLY WRITTEN BY D. S. SWANSON” and I am more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet on that PROBABILITY with anyone who thinks they will conclude differently.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Just so long as we agree that you are not in a position to tell us - as you tried to do yesterday - that the difference between the two expert opinions on the marginalia was that Davies qualified his opinion by adding the word "probably".

All you can comment on is the difference between the brief comments about the Davies report in the press release, and the even briefer comment in the "A to Z" that "the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's" by Totty.

The point is that it isn't humanly possible for anyone to identify handwriting with certainty. All document examiners can deal in is probability. As I've pointed out before, typically they use a nine-point scale to express the probability of two samples having been written by the same person. If Totty gave anything but the most informal, off-the-cuff opinion, he must have spoken in terms of the probability - not the certainty - of the writing being Swanson's, because no professional could do otherwise.

[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

[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?

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!

[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.

[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

[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.

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!

[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

[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.