'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you. However I am speculating that he is unlikely to have made these comments and left more important bombshells out, it wouldn't make sense. Thats all i'm trying to communicate.

I don't see how it would be a "more important bombshell" at all. But as this is indeed all speculation it's hardly worth arguing about.

[Ally]

It is reasonable to assume it would have been commented on in the report, but we don't know whether it was commented on in the report, because we haven't seen the report.

Yes, but the Davis report was commissioned YEARS after the marginalia was first reported on and only after someone else viewed the original and wondered about the discrepancies in the pencils and why that had never been mentioned. And I am less interested in what the Davis report did or did not say as I am in why the discrepancies were not put flat on the table from the get-go for all to judge and make up their own mind about.

To me, the Davis report might need never have been commissioned if the discrepancies in the pencil were examined the first time around, and ALL relevant data examined during the first examination and reporting on the marginalia.

[Jeff Leahy]

It is reasonable to assume it would have been commented on in the report, but we don't know whether it was commented on in the report, because we haven't seen the report.

All we have is five sentences Davies came up with for a press release. There may well be more detail in the report. Or there may not. As we haven't seen the report, we don't know.

Hi Chris

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you. However I am speculating that he is unlikely to have made these comments and left more important bombshells out, it wouldn't make sense. Thats all i'm trying to communicate.

Pirate

[Chris]

Actually you are quite right. If there was a difference in the end annotation it IS reasonable to assume it would have been commented on.

It is reasonable to assume it would have been commented on in the report, but we don't know whether it was commented on in the report, because we haven't seen the report.

All we have is five sentences Davies came up with for a press release. There may well be more detail in the report. Or there may not. As we haven't seen the report, we don't know.

[Jeff Leahy]

Actually you are quite right. If there was a difference in the end annotation it IS reasonable to assume it would have been commented on. And there was a difference: it was written in different pencils and was apparently the only time in the marginalia that the difference appeared.

So one has to wonder, considering it is reasonable to assume that the difference would be commented on, why this difference was left out of the A-Z entirely and was not brought to light when the marginalia was.

Being that it is only reasonable that differences be commented on and all.

Well I guess today’s debate is how Small is Small rather than what is or isn’t probable. If the differences are very, very small perhaps it is reasonable that they weren’t noticed in the original observations.

My observation is that any difference in the end note between: ‘Kosminski was the suspect’ and the rest of the annotation would not be small it would be a giant elephant, which almost certainly would have been commented on.


I suggest you ask those who compiled the A to Z in 1996 what the circumstances were at the time. However it seems to me unreasonable that they should be expected to comment on expert opinion that hadn’t even been made at that time, expert opinion which incidentally doesn’t appear (given not published in full) to contradict there original conclusion even if their original observations were less detailed.

I'll caveat that with the word 'Probably' wasnt in the original AtoZ as i dont wish to run backwards.

Pirate

[Ally]

I'm not. I'm simply saying that if there were a difference in the end annotation its reasonable to assume that it would have been commented on.

I think that's a reasonable assumption,

Pirate

Actually you are quite right. If there was a difference in the end annotation it IS reasonable to assume it would have been commented on. And there was a difference: it was written in different pencils and was apparently the only time in the marginalia that the difference appeared.

So one has to wonder, considering it is reasonable to assume that the difference would be commented on, why this difference was left out of the A-Z entirely and was not brought to light when the marginalia was.

Being that it is only reasonable that differences be commented on and all.

[Chris]

Jeff

Sorry, but I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer than I already have been. And in any case, I simply don't have the time.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Please just read what I wrote in my last message. It's perfectly clear, and perfectly simple.

I'm sorry It isnt clear. Are you trying to say I'm misrepresenting fact?

I'm not. I'm simply saying that if there were a difference in the end annotation its reasonable to assume that it would have been commented on.

I think that's a reasonable assumption, not a miss representation.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Please just read what I wrote in my last message. It's perfectly clear, and perfectly simple.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

The point is that you claimed Davies made no comment about the final sentence on the endpaper. The fact is that you have no idea whether he made a comment about it or not, because you haven't seen the report.

Speculate as much as you like, but please don't misrepresent the facts to suit your speculations.

As i said Chris its hardly wild speculation unless your suggesting that the report might contain radicle new information. And given the importance of that report I find that highly unlikely. I was referring to what is currently known and I think my assumption that we would know if Dr Davies thought there was a difference in the end annotation is good.

Again we can debate the exact meaning of the word 'probability' all day.

However Speculation though I agree it is (by necessity) i stand by my claim that its probable that the last phraze

Kosminski was the suspect-DSS

Was written by the same hand. Do you have any logical arguement against this view?

or are you simply concerned about my use of report instead of 'reported on the internet'?

All the best

Jeff

[Chris]

Jeff

The point is that you claimed Davies made no comment about the final sentence on the endpaper. The fact is that you have no idea whether he made a comment about it or not, because you haven't seen the report.

Speculate as much as you like, but please don't misrepresent the facts to suit your speculations.

[Nothing to see]

Hi NTS

If everyone agreed with each other how dull this site would be

100% correct. But let's be adults while we disagree.

[Stephen Thomas]

PJ. You don't need me to tell you this. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's.
I'm really interested to read everyone's thoughts. Because we don't agree it's not the end of the world.

Hi NTS

If everyone agreed with each other how dull this site would be

[Jeff Leahy]

PJ. You don't need me to tell you this. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's.
I'm really interested to read everyone's thoughts. Because we don't agree it's not the end of the world.

We're all adults. Let's act that way.

Well if everyone else can behave that way, i'm happy to respond. However I simply didn't start it.

but thanks anyway

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Chris;72952]Jeff

Thank you.

You haven't read the report. So obviously you are not in a position to know what Davies did or did not comment on in the report.

The five sentences you quote are simply some comments supplied by Davies for a Forensic Science Service press release. They are not even part of the report. Of course they don't "

Dr Davies in full".

Yes you are correct on that. What I was clearly referencing was Dr Davies Statement on the internet not the full report which neither you or I could actually have seen, because its not pulished in full..

However unless you are suggesting that that report might carry some heavily laden ‘Bomb shell’ which is extremely unlikely (though as you correctly point out ‘Probability’ doesn’t necessarily rule it out as impossible) but unless you can give me ‘good odds’ in common speek….then I am concluding from what is currently known….

That what Dr Davis ‘appears’ to be saying, is that the whole of the endpaper notes were written later and with different pencil than the marginalia notes.

Now unless you believe that that report contains a hidden bombshell, which as I said I believe extremely unlikely..then its safe to assume that the end annotation was written by one person.

Of course there are outside possibilities to this. Perhaps Swanson dictated it? Which is why its initialled. DSS? However we know that there are other examples of Swanson Marginalia being initialled (Ref: Beggs recent article).

Again if you want to make the case for possible forgery you have to take into account that the information to do so wasn’t available until the 1960’s and that the book didn’t pass to Jim Swanson until the death of Swansons Daughter in the 1980’s.

There’s no real reason to suppose that Jim Swanson would have faked the notes: he could have done, but ‘could have’ is not good enough reason for such a serious accusation, especially when Dr Davies twice stated that marginalia throughout was probably written by Donald Sutherland Swanson.

Yours Pirate

PS sorry about the your quote somethoing appears to have gone pear shaped I cant fix..P