'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

I thought you had had another disagreement with Martin.
...
I think you have me wrong if you think I would hold a grudge against anyone who had different views to me in the Ripper community.

Please just do me a favour and read again those two sentences you were responding to (copied below). Do you really not understand the point I'm making? Or is it sometimes convenient to pretend to be confused, just so that you can post a few more bits of smear and innuendo?
_________________________

Well, the fact that I had had another disagreement with Martin Fido, about a different subject, would hardly amount to my holding a "grudge" against him, would it?

Does the fact that you've had a disagreement with Stewart on this thread mean you now hold a "grudge" against him?

[Nothing to see]

I know, I said I'd never come back here. Well, when experts were posting. I've just spent the last 2 hours trying to get back on this forum. Dunno what happened. Anyway.

[Jeff Leahy]

Please just do me a favour and read again those two sentences you were responding to (copied below). Do you really not understand the point I'm making? Or is it sometimes convenient to pretend to be confused, just so that you can post a few more bits of smear and innuendo?
_________________________

Well, the fact that I had had another disagreement with Martin Fido, about a different subject, would hardly amount to my holding a "grudge" against him, would it?

Does the fact that you've had a disagreement with Stewart on this thread mean you now hold a "grudge" against him?

Innuendo? why do you have a big'n...smear? when?

You just Carry on.

Nice to have you back NTS, you havnt missed much

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

Well hell, I just posted this huge reply and it;s gone MIA.

[Jeff Leahy]

What reasons are there to suppose forgery?

Ok let’s get the ball rolling again as it appears to have drawn to a Semantic stop. And I am being forced to listen to people who have not contributed anything to this thread, wiz-up from nowhere and throw insults at me.

Despite everything that has been said the caption at the top of this thread reads:

The Swanson Marginalia revisited.

And having revisited the Swanson Marginalia, nothing has been said or done to shake me from the belief that he Marginalia is probably NOT a forgery…feels better than ‘probably’ genuine. And given what is currently known is almost certainly written by Swanson.

Because what we still have as far as I’m aware is two separate handwriting experts examining the Marginalia and coming to the conclusion it is probably NOT a forgery?

Sushka as you appear to be a fountain of knowledge on such matters perhaps you could help a sneering old pirate out with his problem and explain.

Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?

When it was forged?

Why it was forged?

And why we should not believe the assessment made by both handwriting experts that appear to have draw a conclusion that it almost certainly isn’t forged?

perhaps you could give me an explination why I should dismiss the comment:

Kosminski was the suspect-DSS ??

These are questions my big old innuendo sucking brain is puzzling with?

Pirate

[Chris]

And why we should not believe the assessment made by both handwriting experts that appear to have draw a conclusion that it almost certainly isn’t forged?

You are misrepresenting the facts again. You know very well that Davies did not say the marginalia were almost certainly not forged.

All you are doing with your antics is destroying the possibility of any serious discussion on this thread.

[Ally]

Well that's sort of the point, Chris. As long as the Jester is doing his idiot routine for the benefit of the king, no real hard questions will be asked or answered.

An effectively distracting ploy. Dance, monkey, dance.

[Jeff Leahy]

“What was interesting about analysing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later.
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.”

No I’m not Chris I’m trying to move the discussion on. Dr Davies says what he says. And I except that the whole report has not been published. What I’m asking is if we are to accept the possibility of forgery surely it is reasonable to ask the question.

Who could have forged it? When could it have been forged? Why was it forged?

Otherwise all you have is a pointless argument about semantics’ and what the word ‘probably’ will or will not allow someone to state.

This statement: so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors.

Would appear to allow for a possibility of forgery. However no one has demonstrated to me How, when or Why. That’s my question?

And as it is followed by this statement: It is most likely to be Swanson

I don’t see how I can draw a conclusion that it is anything other than genuine.

Most likely to be Swanson…are you suggesting that Davies means Jim Swanson? I find that most improbable.

What objection could you have to me asking what seems the most obvious questions?
I’ll repeat: Who could have forged it? When could it have been forged..Why??

Perhaps the circus mistress could hazard some guesses instead of pontificating?

Pirate

[Chris]

Yes, Ally, that's pretty much the conclusion I had come to myself.

There is one question I'd like to ask, but it's meant to be constructive rather than hard. Can anyone tell me more about the sample of Swanson's writing that Paul Begg sent to the first document examiner, Dick Totty, for comparison with the annotations? I understand it was from official records (presumably from the MEPO files), but it would be interesting to have more information.

[Chris]

Jeff

Again, you seem unable to understand plain English. Or else you are pretending you can't understand, in order to disrupt the discussion.

You referred to "the assessment made by both handwriting experts that appear to have draw a conclusion that it almost certainly isn’t forged".

The point is that Davies did not say that. And you know that perfectly well.

I suspect the other thing you are eager to do is to misrepresent the rest of us as claiming that the annotations were faked. In fact you have already misrepresented sushka as saying that, when sushka said no such thing.

So - to be absolutely clear - I think everyone who has expressed an opinion in this thread agrees that the annotations are likely to have been written by Donald Swanson. But what most of us are trying to do is to get the facts straight and understand the evidence.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

In fact you have already misrepresented sushka as saying that, when sushka said no such thing.

In FACT i clearly have NOT. I simply asked Sushka to help me out with my problem. If the Marginalia is Fake..Who could have done it and why?

I think that is a completely reasonable question to ask when re-considering the Marginalia.

And i most certainly have not suggested that you think it is Fake. You have clearly stated you think swanson 'probably' wrote it.

Please do not try and misrepresent what I have said.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

Don't you dare accuse me of misrepresenting things.

You asked sushka "Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?". The implication of that was clearly that sushka thought the marginalia had been faked. And sushka had said nothing to suggest that. It was another invention on your part.

But, as I have said, the more you carry on like this, the more I am convinced that you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

Don't you dare accuse me of misrepresenting things.

You asked sushka "Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?". The implication of that was clearly that sushka thought the marginalia had been faked. And sushka had said nothing to suggest that. It was another invention on your part.

But, as I have said, the more you carry on like this, the more I am convinced that you are deliberately trying to disrupt the discussion.

Complete rubbish, That is your INTERPRETATION of what you think I was saying. I was asking Sushka to help me out with my Dilemma because I cant think of a rational set of circumstance that can explain how, when or why the marginalia was forged.

At no point have I ever suggested that Sushka believes the Marginalia is forged..so please apologise for suggesting that I have..

In fact I haven’t implied anything to suggest that anyone has suggested that the Marginalia is forged..

Its quite possible to suggest ways that it may have been forged, which I have done myself, and believe that it is not fake.

Your simply trying to make people believe I’ve said something that I have not said.

Now please with draw your accusation or demonstrate where and when I said Sushka believes the Marginalia to be Fake.

I HAVE NOT

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

If you really can't see that asking someone "Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?" implies that they think somebody faked the marginalia, then you really do have problems.

But I'm not going to play along with this any more.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

If you really can't see that asking someone "Who you think faked the Swanson Marginalia?" implies that they think somebody faked the marginalia, then you really do have problems.

But I'm not going to play along with this any more.

Well that really is convenient, isn’t it Chris.

“Sushka as you appear to be a fountain of knowledge on such matters perhaps you could help a sneering old pirate out with his problem and explain.”

What I actually said if you care to read it is this. I’m clearly asking Sushka to help me with my problem, which is the following.

Not the weaseled interpretation you have placed in your post.

You are clearly trying to MISREPRESENT what I said

Now be man enough to apologize.

Pirate