Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Now I am not going to get embroiled in any more arguments on this matter. It is pointless. The various theories have been put forward and discussed for some time now.
    It is then a matter for people to accept or disregard them. What does p..s me off is the people that pour scorn on the issues are the people that are unable to make a case to disprove the facts by producing any evidence.
    Hello Mr Marriott,
    I'm with you with your efforts pertaining to the SB ledgers, but obviously not with the “organ harvesting“. Monty has provided more than enough evidence to disprove your theories on Mitre Square. Apologies for having posted this here, as it's already been directed to another thread (by Monty).
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • I've just scrutinised Rob House's animation of the marginalia, and it seems to me that the very last element of the animation, the underlining of a couple of words of the purple annotation, is the same colour as the underlining of the text, that is in a grey/black tint. As Maria has already pointed out, I'd say that the purple tinted annotation was written before the underlining of the text was carried out.

      Observer

      Comment


      • Try looking at John's photo on p. 42 on this thread.

        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I'm Wicked through and through.

        Comment


        • The Davies report indicates that the underlining of "also a Jew" was in the same color pencil as the "blackish" marginalia (group 2) and the endnotes. I can also state that Chris Phillips has examined the document and observed the same thing. Therefore, the paragraph at the bottom was written first.

          Re: the other thing. Ally, you seem to have stated that Jim Swanson lied. The most likely scenario is that Mr. Swanson's aunt simply told him that she never looked in the book, and he believed this story, as any sane person would.

          RH

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robhouse View Post
            The Davies report indicates that the underlining of "also a Jew" was in the same color pencil as the "blackish" marginalia (group 2) and the endnotes. I can also state that Chris Phillips has examined the document and observed the same thing. Therefore, the paragraph at the bottom was written first.
            Completely agree. And it appears as the endnotes were also written in the blackish pen (obviously also at/or around “stage 2“).
            Best regards,
            Maria

            Comment


            • Looked at the reproduction on page 42, and I can't make out the underlining of the text, it's way too faint.

              Observer

              Comment


              • Originally posted by robhouse View Post
                The Davies report indicates that the underlining of "also a Jew" was in the same color pencil as the "blackish" marginalia (group 2) and the endnotes. I can also state that Chris Phillips has examined the document and observed the same thing. Therefore, the paragraph at the bottom was written first.

                Re: the other thing. Ally, you seem to have stated that Jim Swanson lied. The most likely scenario is that Mr. Swanson's aunt simply told him that she never looked in the book, and he believed this story, as any sane person would.

                RH
                It could also be a habit thing. For example, my grandmother never read anything other than the bible and Harlequin romance novels. She didn't even read other kinds of romance novels. Just Harlequin. It made gift giving occasions easy, but was sort of irritating that she wouldn't branch out into say, an Agatha Christie novel. When she died we found a bunch of books she had gotten us but had forgotten about. Native American folklore, String Theory, Collected works of Shakespeare, Algonquin Round Table...

                Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt she never read them despite the fact they were in her house? No. But she never read them. Never flipped through them, never opened them, had absolutely zero interest in their contents other than that they would please my sister and I. I could probably pass a lie detector test if someone ever asked me if she had looked in them.
                The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                  Looked at the reproduction on page 42, and I can't make out the underlining of the text, it's way too faint.Observer
                  A magnified pdf or JPG file posted on the internet can turn all colors of the rainbow. I've had this problem when forwarding files per email. I've even had it when printing out photos with my cheap EPSON printer.
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • Errata,

                    Swanson was in charge of the investigation and others were ordered to give all information to him regarding the murders. He would have been privy to more information than anyone else had all information been turned over to him. This means, theoretically, he would have known the most. That makes the Marginalia seem so important and makes the name 'Kosminski' so baffling as a man in this position, throwing a name out there as being the killer, makes us think he had good reason to. Unfortunately, we don't have much else.

                    Mike
                    huh?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      Really? Where precisely did I say this recently?
                      I apologize, I apparently confused you with someone else. Although in post 539 you wrote, "However, the end paper is clearly written in a pencil that doesn't have the same grey/black sheen as regular graphite." Perhaps that was what I was remembering. Still, I give you the benefit of the doubt.

                      Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      Where are there other incidents of him initialing the marginalia, are there any, and if not, why do the initials only appear when there's purple?
                      I don't know what you are talking about here. The "DSS' at the bottom of pg 138 is in the purplish pencil. The DSS at the bottom of the endpaper is in blackish pencil.

                      Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      It is also not correct to state that a handwriting analysis means squat. Handwriting analysis is at best pseudoscience and at worse educated guessing. There is no scientific principle behind handwriting analysis. It is not a science. It has absolutely no provable value. I frankly don't care if there is another handwriting analysis done and I don't really care about the Davies report (other than I wish it would just be out there so people can quit harping on it). There is no degree in handwriting analysis by any reputable scientific institute (although i am sure you can find an "accredited course" from Woo Woo U)
                      I think it is safe to say you do not know what you are talking about here. Questioned document examination is considered a forensic science, a part of which is the "examination of handwriting to assess potential authorship." There are various certifications for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questio...Certification). Davies is a senior document examiner at the London Laboratory of the Forensic Science Service. I have no idea why you think this is not a valid area of forensic science. I assume you are just talking about something you know nothing about here.

                      Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      I disagree that the underlining is in blackish pencil. It is the same color as the w, t and h in the purple...letters beginning new lines which is probably down to pressure accounting for differences in shade. It is of course impossible to tell without seeing it in person, but there are letters in the purple text that are the exact same shade as the underlining.
                      [...] Try looking at John's photo on p. 42 on this thread.
                      First, you are wrong. Second, the fact that the pencil is quite faded means that it is even harder to see the difference in color. I would imagine this is much easier to see when looking at the original document. I would also imagine Davies probably used magnification when looking at the original. I mean, are you really trying to say that you are making your conclusions about the pencil color from looking at a low resolution, non-color corrected jpg online? That is revealing.

                      RH

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                        Errata,

                        Swanson was in charge of the investigation and others were ordered to give all information to him regarding the murders. He would have been privy to more information than anyone else had all information been turned over to him. This means, theoretically, he would have known the most. That makes the Marginalia seem so important and makes the name 'Kosminski' so baffling as a man in this position, throwing a name out there as being the killer, makes us think he had good reason to. Unfortunately, we don't have much else.

                        Mike
                        And I can totally see that. I guess my problem is that it's 15 years later, and some information had already clearly been lost. I mean, Kosminski was still alive at the time Swanson was writing this, and the book he is writing it in declares Kosminski to be dead. And I would imagine that if Swanson took the time to name the suspect, he would also write "and actually he was released like a year later and is still alive today". It is inconceivable to me that they would lose Jack the Ripper.

                        And it doesn't mean he didn't write that it was Kosminski. Just that if he could be wrong about whether or not Jack the Ripper was alive or dead, he could be wrong about Kosminski. Maybe the real suspect had the more common name Kaminsky. Maybe it was a guy who looked a little like Kosminski, so when he conjures up the image of the guy he misnames him. Maybe Kosminski cut him off in traffic and decided to frame him in the privacy of his notes. Maybe it was an inside joke between police buddies. Or maybe it was in fact Kosminski. But when you blow big stuff, it's not out of the realm of possibility that you can blow other big stuff.

                        And nobody feels bad when the boy who cries wolf gets eaten. Because he deserved it. And on that note, i'm going to get some much needed sleep.
                        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                        Comment


                        • Just to confirm that, as Rob says, on the original the underlining of "also a Jew" appears to be the same colour as the endpaper annotations.

                          Davies thought the same:
                          "I have further noted that the underline of the words "also a Jew" in the Set 1 entry appears to be in a similar pencil to that used for the Set 2 entries."

                          Comment


                          • In case anyone is still interested in the red lines, Paul Begg posted the following yesterday on jtrforums.com:
                            "I’m pretty sure that I now know who put the lines there and hopefully a little more research will confirm this."

                            Comment


                            • I know a little about colour,but not about crayons,so my question is this.Mix two different colours and you get a third colour,so if you overwrite one crayon with a crayon of another colour would they merge(mix) to form a third different colour?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by robhouse View Post
                                I don't know what you are talking about here. The "DSS' at the bottom of pg 138 is in the purplish pencil. The DSS at the bottom of the endpaper is in blackish pencil.
                                Hmm yes, sorry, temporary insanity. I was looking at an old bit I had and I don't know if I'd been screwing with photoshop or what to play up the purple, but I was looking at an altered document not the original. So that was my fault for working from crappy sources but I get tired of trying to scroll through sixty pages to find what I am looking for and pulled up something in error. My total bad.

                                I think it is safe to say you do not know what you are talking about here. Questioned document examination is considered a forensic science, a part of which is the "examination of handwriting to assess potential authorship." There are various certifications for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questio...Certification). Davies is a senior document examiner at the London Laboratory of the Forensic Science Service. I have no idea why you think this is not a valid area of forensic science. I assume you are just talking about something you know nothing about here.
                                Questioned Document Examination, sure absolutely. I never said there wasn't. I said there wasn't a scientific basis for handwriting analysis and there's no real study involved in it.

                                Let's look at those Hitler Diaries--stated to be completely real based on Examination of Handwriting. Proven false based on actual science like paper and ink testing.

                                Handwriting analysis might be part of "Questioned Document Examination" but it is not a science and the most recent court cases regarding it are disputing it as actual evidence.

                                It is not a science it is an educated guess. And I would say it is more likely that one can "disprove" authorship, than one could conclusively prove.


                                First, you are wrong. Second, the fact that the pencil is quite faded means that it is even harder to see the difference in color. I would imagine this is much easier to see when looking at the original document. I would also imagine Davies probably used magnification when looking at the original. I mean, are you really trying to say that you are making your conclusions about the pencil color from looking at a low resolution, non-color corrected jpg online? That is revealing.
                                Sorry I wasn't aware you had seen it in person. When was that? Does that also mean you knew there were red lines and didn't tell anyone? When did Maria see it in person? Or is it only myself who is revealing when making my conclusions based on a low resolution, non-colored photo.

                                Ah I see Chris has put something up about the Davies agreeing that the pencil is underlined in different color. Excellent. It would be great if everyone had the Davies in front of us to help us out. Wouldn't it?

                                However it's irrelevant now. If the purple pencil is underlined in grey, as the alleged forgery part is also in grey, the argument that the grey came later doesn't support the non-forgery idea. It actually removes a complication.

                                I thought it unlikely the forger would have forged (the purple pencil) on two separate pages and the fact that I was (wrongly) thinking the end paper also had the purple sheen was a stick in the gears. But now that I have been reminded that the end paper was in grey, that removes that complication.

                                Thanks for setting me straight.
                                Last edited by Ally; 01-31-2011, 12:52 PM.

                                Let all Oz be agreed;
                                I'm Wicked through and through.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X