Did Anderson Know

[caz]

Hi Jeff,

I'm confused. Why did you quote my post if you were not going to address what I asked? I didn't have you down as a 'doubter' in any case.

Just to clarify, I wanted to know from anyone who thinks the small differences in the marginalia may indicate two different hands (one Swanson, the other a forger) what viable alternative they see to both authors having been schooled in the Victorian era.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I'm confused. Why did you quote my post if you were not going to address what I asked? I didn't have you down as a 'doubter' in any case.

Just to clarify, I wanted to know from anyone who thinks the small differences in the marginalia may indicate two different hands (one Swanson, the other a forger) what viable alternative they see to both authors having been schooled in the Victorian era.

Love, Caz X

Hi Caz

Sorry about late reply..I think I'm going down with flue?....So a little muddy.

Thanks for your clarification..obviously I respect your perspective on the matter of forgery. I have no wish to teach 'egg sucking'. (and I mean that in a generous way, I'm not suggesting your old).

Re: Davies. I'm not certain of anything else he has qualified, or how he has qualified other analysis documents. He seems to be an expert at scotland yard excepted by most people I have spoken with. Including the posters here. But I except that the way he addressed other examinations might/would be relevant.

I think it unlikely that the Marginalia could be an old forgery...the name Kosminski/Kosmanski only came to light comparitively recently.

Any suggestion of a forgery implicates Jim Swanson or his brother. Neither of whom appear to have any background in saphisticated forgery

(Your all going to have to forgive my dyslecxia I aint feeking good tonight..)

So an inportant question might be. 'IS the end note writen by one person?'

which seems apparent..

or is it all by the same person?

The stated difference appears to be between one set of written comments and the other, at the end..

I dont think that we're suggesting that only the comment and name 'Kosminski'..are the only added section? perhaps?

The doubts appear to come from the coincidental 'timing' of the appearance

(which I must admit is foretuatus)

AND SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE END NOTES. Diifferent colour pencil, slight variation of hand writing (which may be attributed to Swansons age) But I think the suggestion is that they were (ie end notes) written by one person?

Clearly, as you know Caz, this is a question that has troubled me for some time. And also because I believe Rob House has it correct (for what thats worth).

If the Marginalia is a forgery then that all collapses...

Anderson is a very interesting side line. But the Marginalia is important.

Clearly I wouldnt have ask the questions of Stewart Evans at conference if i didnt respect his opinion. And clearly I wouldnt be here asking more if there were no doubts in my mind.

So again, for what its worth..and bearing in mind I've given Paul a much harder time than I've given Stewart over the Jim Swanson Story.

I'd bet my house its genuine..my car, my possessions, my books and CD's.

I'd consider.... over night,,and with some sleep... betting my life on it.

even my camera and edit system...(just)

But if you asked me would I bet my daughters life...

The answer would still be a deffinate 'NO'

Which makes me wonder whether more examination of the document might be justified...what harm could that do?

Respect Caz...if I've gotten your meaning wrong I appologuise its been a long week and I'm very tierd..

So an early nioght..oh for those days of rock'n'roll..

Sweet dreams

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Well now Pirate Jack,that really is a highly academic and scholarly argument if ever there was one!
Norma
psst! Get well soon Jeff!

[Jeff Leahy]

If i'd laid a cold statistic like "I'm 98% certain" what would that mean?

I'm a bloody TV video/producer. I've never claimed to be a JtR researcher or a historian.

And I'm feeling poorly...

but thanks for taking interest..

Pirrraaateeeeee tyhingy

PS. I'm putting together some stuff..hopefully sooon ish. I'd I'd welcome your views. XX

[Chris]

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.

[Dr Christopher Davies, Forensic Science Service document examiner.]

...

The implication of the expert opinion quoted above appears to be that even if Swanson wasn’t the author of part of the marginalia it would still have been someone from the same era.

I don't think that's the implication at all.

Davies merely said it was possible that the differences between the handwriting samples could reflect the differences between different authors from the Victorian era.

There's nothing in that to rule out the obvious alternative - that the differences were due to someone else imitating Swanson's handwriting imperfectly.

[Robert]

An argument in favour of authenticity would be Swanson's mention of a brother. The discovery that a supposed brother-in-law was actually a brother, is very recent.

[Chris]

An argument in favour of authenticity would be Swanson's mention of a brother. The discovery that a supposed brother-in-law was actually a brother, is very recent.

The problem there is that the workhouse records do describe Woolf as Aaron's brother. It was only subsequently, following the discovery that Woolf's wife was named Kozminski, that it was assumed that this was an error for "brother-in-law".

[Robert]

Damn!

[caz]

(Quote:
Originally Posted by caz:

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.

[Dr Christopher Davies, Forensic Science Service document examiner.]

...

The implication of the expert opinion quoted above appears to be that even if Swanson wasn’t the author of part of the marginalia it would still have been someone from the same era.)


I don't think that's the implication at all.

Davies merely said it was possible that the differences between the handwriting samples could reflect the differences between different authors from the Victorian era.

There's nothing in that to rule out the obvious alternative - that the differences were due to someone else imitating Swanson's handwriting imperfectly.

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for your opinion on this one. I only meant that all Davies appears to be saying is that the small differences he observed 'may just' reflect the work of different authors whose writing would otherwise be 'very similar' because people in the Victorian era were all taught the same copybook.

I inferred from his choice of words: 'so…may just…' that he was not silently envisaging any alternative two-author scenarios. In short, if he thought there was an 'obvious alternative' he didn’t say as much. He didn’t say that the differences could 'equally', may 'very well' or even might 'just' reflect someone from a later era copying imperfectly.

If you can infer this from what he did write, fair play to you. But I can’t and I’d rather not put any such words into his mouth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

If you can infer this from what he did write, fair play to you. But I can’t and I’d rather not put any such words into his mouth.

What the ...?

You are the one trying to infer that "it would still have been someone from the same era"!

I'm not inferring anything or putting any words into anyone's mouth. I merely pointed out that what Davies says doesn't logically imply the conclusion you're trying to draw.

Please don't start playing silly games on this one.

[caz]

Please Chris, I hope you are not getting hot and bothered about this. There's really no need. As I said, you can interpret the sentence your way and I’ll interpret it in mine.

Here is the sentence again, purely for others reading along:

‘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.’

I humbly submit that it is only because Victorians ‘were all taught the same copybook’ and therefore ‘tended to have very similar writing anyway’ that Davies is allowing here for the possibility that these small differences ‘may just’ be the small differences between different authors (as opposed to small differences due to one author writing at different times and/or with a different implement).

It would seem (to me at least) to rob the sentence of its whole point to try to claim that Davies was naturally extending this possibility to include different authors schooled in different eras, one of whom was copying the other’s handwriting imperfectly. That would be a different hypothesis entirely, requiring its own reasoning and evidence.

If Davies was suggesting no such scenario (and I can see no evidence of it in what he writes above) then he may not be the best expert source to support the viability of this ‘obvious alternative’, or to help maintain doubts about the authenticity of the marginalia. But by all means milk Davies for all you think he’s worth, if you truly believe his reference to 'different authors' implies that he is considering the possibility of a modern forgery. I just don’t see it myself.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Maybe I missed something. Is Davies report available online?

According to the few sentences that have been offered, I feel Caz is right in what Davies was saying, namely, that the slight differences could be because authors of the era were cut from the same mold. There is nothing in that passage that indicates any belief that a modern forger could have done it. That doesn't mean a modern forger could have done it, it's just that Davies isn't looking in that direction.

Cheers,

Mike

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

There's really nothing complicated about this.

Davies's report has not been published. As far as I know, not a word of it has been directly quoted. What I posted here earlier was a one-sentence summary of his conclusion - that "it was highly likely they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson" - and some separate comments made by Davies, both from a Forensic Service press release.

It is perfectly obvious that someone asked to examine a questioned document, containing comments in handwriting resembling Swanson's and initialled "D.S.S.", must have considered the possibility that they had been written by someone who had imitated Swanson's handwriting.

We simply do not know what conclusions Davies reached about this possibility, except of course that, as he thought the annotations were highly likely to have been written by Swanson, he must have considered all the alternatives to have been highly unlikely.

The possibility he mentioned in the separate comments (as an "added complication"), that it was possible that they had been written by another Victorian, clearly does not imply that it was impossible that they were written in modern times.

What I take exception to is your nonsensical claim that I was "putting words into" Davies's mouth when, on the contrary, I was pointing out that the words you were trying to put into his mouth had no logical basis in his comments quoted here. You have a long history of misrepresenting what I have posted on these boards, and if you pretend not to understand why it annoys me, you are certainly being disingenous.

[caz]

It is perfectly obvious that someone asked to examine a questioned document, containing comments in handwriting resembling Swanson's and initialled "D.S.S.", must have considered the possibility that they had been written by someone who had imitated Swanson's handwriting.

We simply do not know what conclusions Davies reached about this possibility, except of course that, as he thought the annotations were highly likely to have been written by Swanson, he must have considered all the alternatives to have been highly unlikely.

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for clarifying that in your opinion Davies 'must' have considered the possibility of someone schooled in a later period copying Swanson's handwriting and 'must' have considered this 'highly unlikely'.

If you had said that in the first place, instead of accusing Martin Fido of treating Davies like a fool for what you implied was a report and conclusion that treated the modern forgery scenario as a viable option, there would have been no need for you to get hot under the collar with me.

It seems that Davies is every bit the scholar Fido could have wanted him to be, and nobody's fool.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Caroline Morris

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time to waste in responding to such nonsense.

Can't you go and make trouble somewhere else?