Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

... 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.

[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?

[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

[Monty]

Stewart!

Surely not.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Jeff Leahy]

samantic alert

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

Now I really must fly..

[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]

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...

__________________

[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 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