New Article on the Swanson Marginalia in Ripperologist 128

[PaulB]

When I am good and ready my friend !

Yep. It's up to you, but you haven't delivered on anything yet and it is simply being realistic to observe that your credibility isn't running high, to put it mildly, and won't be served by you continuing to play the innuendo card.

[PaulB]

That's not the case, Trevor.

I contacted Dr Davies because new handwriting samples by Donald Swanson had been discovered, not because you weren't happy.

Dr Davies was happy to re-examine the Marginalia because these samples were written in the 1910-1924 bracket, which he referred to in the conclusion of his 2006 report as being better for comparison purposes.

Best wishes
Adam

And neither report, Totty or Davies, was "flawed" anyway.

[Chris]

How about you and the others who swore blind that the two original reports from Dr Totty asnd Dr Davies were conclusive proof of the authenticity of the marginalia, when clearly that was not the case.

That's absolute nonsense. I've never said any such thing.

On the contrary, after the A to Z published extracts from Dr Davies's report I made a point of clarifying that "strong evidence to support the proposition" meant a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 9:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=13

You are the one who has made a claim about "conclusive" evidence. You've claimed that there is a "conclusive" finding that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson. As I have said, I think that in fairness to the Swanson family you should now either back that claim up by publishing the details, or else withdraw it.

[Trevor Marriott]

And neither report, Totty or Davies, was "flawed" anyway.

Wernt they watch this space !

If they werent flawed why was there a need to get Dr Davies to do a re exmination ?

[Monty]

Oh they were startling its just you werent there to savour them !

Bet they sounded good in your head.

Mark,

How tall are you? 6'5"?

Easily missed my friend.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

That's absolute nonsense. I've never said any such thing.

On the contrary, after the A to Z published extracts from Dr Davies's report I made a point of clarifying that "strong evidence to support the proposition" meant a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 9:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=13

You are the one who has made a claim about "conclusive" evidence. You've claimed that there is a "conclusive" finding that the marginalia were not written by Donald Swanson. As I have said, I think that in fairness to the Swanson family you should now either back that claim up by publishing the details, or else withdraw it.

It would seem that yours and my interpretion of "conclusive" is miles apart

[John Bennett]

Oh, isn't this just nonsense?

Adam and Keith's article, like their previous one on the Aberconway Version of the Macnaghten Memoranda, was a much needed and amply sourced peice of work. With disputed documents such as these, transparency and new facts on provenance etc. are desperately needed and both these articles triumph in that sense. Until something else comes up, this is as good as it's going to get.

And yet, despite the now full publication of the Davis report PLUS a second report using material that was unavailable before and basically gives the examiner exactly what he needed to conduct a fairer test in the first place, there is still a load of pooh-poohing. Some people will never get it, I'm afraid.

Adam and Keith, it was a great article and quite frankly, just what the doctor ordered on this issue. It's a shame that some people can react to something as straighforward and informative as that with utter drivel.

[Chris]

It would seem that yours and my interpretion of "conclusive" is miles apart

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

"Conclusive" was the word you yourself used, in describing the examination you said had been made by a "leading handwriting expert". You said the opinion of that expert was that the marginalia had not been written by Donald Swanson:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14187&page=6

That claim is what I am suggesting you should now either substantiate or withdraw, in fairness to the Swanson family.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's not the case, Trevor.

I contacted Dr Davies because new handwriting samples by Donald Swanson had been discovered, not because you weren't happy.

Dr Davies was happy to re-examine the Marginalia because these samples were written in the 1910-1924 bracket, which he referred to in the conclusion of his 2006 report as being better for comparison purposes.

Best wishes
Adam

Well thats your take on it.

It still doesnt detract from the fact that many were suggesting that the original two handwriting reports were conclusive and I can tell you from a professional and evidential perspective they were not.

I am not going to discuss any of this further on here. As stated I wil in due course respond fully to all that has been said against me and full diuscuss all the old and new material apperatining to the authenticity of the marginlia.

[AdamNeilWood]

Wernt they watch this space !

If they werent flawed why was there a need to get Dr Davies to do a re exmination ?

I already answered this in post 134.

In order to produce the most up-to-date, complete article possible I wanted to include a new report by Dr Davies using the new handwriting samples.

If I hadn't, you would have been on here asking why Nevill Swanson wouldn't allow a new test now that better samples were available.

Adam

[PaulB]

Wernt they watch this space !

If they werent flawed why was there a need to get Dr Davies to do a re exmination ?

Why I bother with you I don't know, but to begin with Dr Davies original report was not flawed, and secondly nobody got him to do a re-examination because of any flaws. As explained, new handwriting emerged and in particular a hand written document which confirmed the shakiness Dr Davies had originally observed, and this material was presented to him, and it resolved the minor caveats he had originally made. Don't try to twist the facts, Trevor.

[AdamNeilWood]

Well thats your take on it.

My take? Sorry, I didn't realise you knew more about my reasons for doing things than I do.

I am not going to discuss any of this further on here. As stated I wil in due course respond fully to all that has been said against me and full diuscuss all the old and new material apperatining to the authenticity of the marginlia.

Looking forward to it, especially the part where you confirm that Jim Swanson had nothing to do with the writing of the Marginalia.

Adam

[PaulB]

I am not going to discuss any of this further on here. As stated I wil in due course respond fully to all that has been said against me and full diuscuss all the old and new material apperatining to the authenticity of the marginlia.

And so Trev runs away, to argue his nonsense another day. First, though, you do owe Nevill a sincere apology, and Jim Swanson an even bigger one. But you don't do apologies do you?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why I bother with you I don't know, but to begin with Dr Davies original report was not flawed, and secondly nobody got him to do a re-examination because of any flaws. As explained, new handwriting emerged and in particular a hand written document which confirmed the shakiness Dr Davies had originally observed, and this material was presented to him, and it resolved the minor caveats he had originally made. Don't try to twist the facts, Trevor.

Twisting the facts seems I am learning from you !

[PaulB]

Twisting the facts seems I am learning from you !

yeah, yeah, yeah... Heard it all before.