Private sale

[Cogidubnus]

Tove

Robert
Did Jim Swanson make a mistake about all his grandfather’s faculties?
I also provide details where Jim Swanson waxed lyrical about his grandfather’s other physical faculties.
Which suggests that Jim Swanson was proud that as far as he was concerned his grandfather was in fine trim all round right up to his death… with all his faculties intact.

Logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end.

What an offensive load of old bollocks this is...to conflate a minor physical difficulty with a loss of faculties is an untruth of the first order...You've been corrected by various people and yet you continue to lie and bluster in a vain attempt to bolster up your specious and facile argument.

You seem to be constitutionally unable to admit to being wrong, to having made a mistake...to having a need to back up...when challenged you rely on slithy arguments which you then later twist when proved wrong...so off you go Ed...gyre and gimble in the wabe...you're not impressing anyone...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

You are sad and seriously in need of help.

But take comfort.

This "creepy pervey old dude" is outa here.

From now I'll leave you to argue with your own internal voices.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Robert
When Jim Swanson said all his faculties I would interpret it to mean ALL his faculties - otherwise why use the word ALL if he just meant mental faculties?

The reason why this came up at all is that the passage where Jim Swanson says 'all his faculties' can be used to substantiate the claim that DS Swanson did not have shaky hands. This is backed up by Jim Swanson's other tales about his grandfather threading flies - a very fiddly job that requires the faculty of dexterous fingers; and fishing in Scotland - which required the faculties of balance, sturdy legs and strong arms!
We are building up quite a few faculties.

This has a bearing on Dr Davis' suggestion that the shaky handwriting could be explained by a form of Parkinsonism. He offered no other explanation remember.
Incidentally virtually every form of Parkinsonism that DS Swanson could plausibly have been suffering from presented shaky hands, and concurrently mental deterioration and 'stone face'.
There is no evidence for any of these symptoms in DS Swanson.
This leads me to suspect that he was not suffering from any form of Parkinsonism which in turn makes me question whether his handwriting would have been shaky, certainly to the degree that Dr Davis attributed to a form of Parkinsonism.
That Robert is why I would like to see the 1923 letter held up to scrutiny as this letter shows shaky handwriting and has been used to validate the shaky script in the Marginalia.

[Lechmere]

Cog
Have you been on the sauce?
Dr Davis suggested a form of parkinsonism. That is not a minor thing.
If Dr Davis had just said something like 'he showed a tremor as is common in elderly people' then there would be no problem. But he didn't. And there we are.
I don't have to back up from anything and haven't changed my argument and I haven't told a single lie.

[Ally]

So much for you going by what he actually said. He did not suggest it was from Parkinson's he said it was similar not the same to people suffering neurological conditions like Parkinson's.

Definition of similar: resembling without being identical. Not identical to people suffering from Parkinson's.

And you lied when you said that a handwriting analysts training would equip them to diagnose the cause of a tremor. Davis never claimed that. You did.

[Cogidubnus]

Cog
Have you been on the sauce?
Dr Davis suggested a form of parkinsonism. That is not a minor thing.
If Dr Davis had just said something like 'he showed a tremor as is common in elderly people' then there would be no problem. But he didn't. And there we are.
I don't have to back up from anything and haven't changed my argument and I haven't told a single lie.
Today 02:22 AM

No Ed sadly not...else I'd give more credence to the tosh I'm reading here...have you actually read the September 2012 Davies report in Ripperologist 128...If not I suggest you do...

All the best

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Polish Jew

...
So what I am saying is that if the suspects name was added between 1981 and 1987 then it would most likely have been 'Pizer was the suspect.'
Rob

Rob, as one of the message board posters for whom I have the greatest respect, and whose work I greatly admire, I am reluctant to disagree with you.

However, in this instance, in my opinion, 'Kosminski' (and not Pizer) would be the natural choice for anyone wishing to credibly use the name of a police Polish Jew suspect. The name 'Kosminski' had been in the public domain since 1965 (Odell) when it was given as the name of the Police (Macnaghten) suspect Polish Jew, the description of whom fitted Anderson's Polish Jew.

I hasten to add that this is a post in the spirit of giving my own assessment of the facts and not in any way suggesting that the name written at the end of the annotations is faked or suspect.

[Fisherman]

So much for you going by what he actually said. He did not suggest it was from Parkinson's he said it was similar not the same to people suffering neurological conditions like Parkinson's.

Definition of similar: resembling without being identical. Not identical to people suffering from Parkinson's.

So what you are saying here is that Davies can not only tell if a document was written by somebody with Parkinson´s disease - he could actually nail if somebody was affected by something that was NOT Parkinson´s but still pretty damn close to it. So close, in fact, as to cause a similarity with the result that one would expect from somebody with Parkinson´s disease, but not similar enough not to give away that some other factor was what caused the particular tremor.

And after ascribing to this almighty faith in Davies capability to tell apart different types of tremor, you still say that it´s an outright lie to claim that a document specialist can reveal what underlying disease or ailment causes a certain type of shaky text?

No matter how you reached this conclusion, here´s a snippet from the net, just for you:

Handwriting assessment can be used for early detection of Parkinson’s disease By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
09/10/2013 23:13

Recent studies have found distinct differences between the handwriting of patients with Parkinson’s disease and that of healthy people. Parkinson’s disease, a degeneration of the central nervous system whose most prominent clinical symptoms are shaking, slowness of movement and rigidity, can be detected early through a noninvasive handwriting- analysis technique developed at the University of Haifa and Rambam Medical Center.

Until now, the primary tool for diagnosing Parkinson’s was an examination by an expert physician, who could usually identify clinical symptoms only after the disease had progressed considerably.

Physicians often conduct a test called SPECT, which uses radioactive material to image the brain. This technique is no more effective than an assessment by a medical specialist, and it exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Recent studies, however, have found distinct differences between the handwriting of patients with Parkinson’s disease and that of healthy people.

“Identifying the handwriting changes could lead to an early diagnosis of the illness and neurological intervention at a critical moment,” explained Prof. Sara Rosenblum of the university’s occupational therapy department, who initiated the study.

Most studies until now have focused on motor skills (such as the drawing of spirals) while ignoring cognitive abilities, such as signing a check, copying addresses and so on.

According to Rosenblum, Parkinson’s patients report an awareness of change in their cognitive abilities before detecting a deterioration in motor skills. Therefore, testing cognitive impairment, as was done in this study, might hint at the presence of the disease and offer a way to diagnose it earlier.

The study was conducted in cooperation with Dr. Ilana Schlesinger, head of Rambam’s Center for Movement Disorders and Parkinson’s disease, and occupational therapists.

They asked subjects to write their names and gave them addresses to copy – two routine tasks that require cognitive capability. Forty adult participants with at least 12 years of schooling – half healthy and half known to be in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease, before a deterioration of motor skills was apparent – participated.

The writing was done on a regular piece of paper that was placed on an electronic tablet, using a special pen with pressure- sensitive sensors that were activated upon hitting the writing surface. A computerized analysis of the results compared a number of parameters: writing form (length, width and height of the letters), time required and pressure exerted.

Analysis of the results showed significant differences between the patients with Parkinson’s and the healthy group. The diagnosis was correct (at 97.5 percent accuracy) for all subjects except one.

Those afflicted by Parkinson’s wrote smaller letters, exerted less pressure on the writing surface and took more time.

According to Rosenblum, a particularly noticeable difference was the length of time the pen was in the air between the writing of each letter and each word.

“This finding is particularly important because, while the patient holds the pen in the air, his mind is planning his next action in the writing process, and the need for more time reflects the subject’s reduced cognitive ability.

Changes in handwriting can occur years before a clinical diagnosis and therefore can be an early signal of the approaching disease,” Rosenblum said.

According to Schlesinger, validating these findings in a broader study would allow this method to be used for a preliminary diagnosis in a safe, noninvasive fashion.

“This study is a breakthrough toward an objective diagnosis of the disease,” she said. “Publication of the study in the journal of the European Neurological Society aroused great interest at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement held last week in Sydney, Australia.”

The researchers note that this diagnostic method has the added benefit of reducing the load on the health system because the test can be performed by a professional other than a doctor. After the results are in, patients can be referred to a doctor for further treatment and testing if necessary.

The researchers are using this method in a new experiment, in which they use handwriting analysis to evaluate the degree of Parkinson’s patients’ improved functioning after the implanting of brain pacemakers.

So what can we learn - if we wish to ... - from this? Yes, that´s it: Parkinson´s disease is a disease that produces changes in a person´s handwriting that are typical for this exact disease. It´reveals itself in a number of things, writing smaller letters, using smaller pressure etcetera.

I have found other snippets on the net too, confirming these things, the perhaps most typically reocurring mentioning being that Parkinson patients diminish the size of their letters when writing.

In conclusion, document specialists are able to reveal what kind of impact different diseases have on handwriting - at least to some degree. I fully expected this to be the case, since different diseases will affect the body in different ways, some of them logically being traceable for an expert.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next up is this:

The Daubert trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court cases has established that scientific expert testimony must be based on science grounded in empirical research. As such, greater scrutiny is being placed on questioned document examination generally, and handwriting comparison in particular. Bridging the gap between theory and practice, The Neuroscience of Handwriting: Applications in Forensic Document Examination examines the essential neuroscientific principles underlying normal and pathological hand motor control and handwriting.

Topics discussed include:

Fundamental principles in the neuroanatomy and neurochemistry of hand motor control and their application to research in handwriting
The epidemiology, pathophysiology, and motor characteristics of neurogenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, essential tremor, and motor neuron disease and their effects on handwriting

Psychotropic medications prescribed for depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis; their mechanisms of action; and their effect on motor behavior and handwriting

The impact of substance abuse on handwriting

An overview of the aging process and its effects on motor control and handwriting

The kinematic approach and new findings on the kinematic analyses of genuine, disguised, and forged signatures

The authors’ laboratory research on authentic and forged signatures
An essential resource for professionals and researchers in the forensic documentation examination and legal communities, this volume provides a window on the scientific process of signature and handwriting authentication, integrating the extensive research on neural processes and exploring how disease, medication, and advanced age alter these processes.


It would seem that a lot of work has been done on how different diseases affect handwriting. So maybe Davies was not outright guessing after all? Maybe he was simply doing his job, and identifying Swanson´s shaky handwriting as typical for the cluster of diseases to which Parkinsons disease belongs. And maybe he was able to rule out a whole range of other diseases, knowing full well that the signs typical for them were not at hand in this example.

Science. You gotta love it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

A Better Context

In the hope that I may be able to put this debate into a better context and obviate some of the patent nonsense that has been written on this thread I am, again, giving my opinion of it.

First off let me say that the annotated Anderson book is private property in private hands. The owner is answerable to no one over the book, its contents or its disposal. He has absolute rights and arguments about provenance and historical importance are subjective and mainly of importance to the individual who has an interest. As we can seen there are two distinct 'camps' (where have we heard that before?) and this polemic will, surely, always exist. We may see that the majority of the most vigorous of the 'anti-marginalia' brigade are those who espouse their own (opposing) theories. In other words they have their own agenda. They may argue that they are making a stand for veracity, correct procedures etc., but anyone who has properly examined all the evidence (and they haven't - they rely on secondary sources) must come the conclusion that the provenance is very good (it has always been in the Swanson family) and that it is as certain as it can be that the writing is that of Donald Swanson.

More to follow...

[Monty]

Parkinsonism

Been here before Ally,

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=200852&highlight=parkinsonism#post200852

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Specious

Many of the arguments presented on this thread by the 'anti' brigade are specious and I say that as one whose main interest here is in establishing the facts and proper context of this much disputed material and not as one who is either 'pro' or 'anti'. But it was not always so.

At the time that I was compiling the Ultimate, with my close colleague Keith Skinner, we discussed the 'marginalia' and the need to photograph it for our book. Up until this time I had always accepted the 'marginalia' for what it was - and it had hardly ever been challenged apart from suggestive remarks by Paul Harrison at the time he wrote his Barnett 'suspect' book, a point noted by the authors of the A-Z. In answer to this the A-Z (1996 edition) contained the following comments in its entry on 'the Swanson marginalia'.

1. 'Pencil notes in Swanson's hand, written in the margins and on the endpapers [sic] of his personal copy of Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs, The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910).

2. 'This strictly private and personal memorandum, written by a man who had retained all his faculties and had no reason to mislead anybody or anticipate that the notes would be remarked by anyone, must represent the truth as Swanson saw it in or about 1910.'

3. 'Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner.'

Although I had, in 1999, never seen the actual book and annotations, nor had I ever seen any report on the examination of the book by the Home Office document examiner, I was happy to agree with the conclusions and accepted the material as genuine. In my writings, whenever I referred to the 'marginalia', I never cast doubt upon it, nor did I indicate anything but complete acceptance of it for what it was.

When I actually examined the book and the annotations in 2000 I immediately noticed that there were differences in the sets of annotations in the body of the book and on the rear free endpaper. These differences were in the colour of the graphite of the pencil used (one grey and the other with a purplish tinge) and that there were slight differences in the handwriting (one appeared to be 'shakier' than the other). I commented on this at the time but no further remark was made. They were, however, points I felt should have been picked up on and discussed at the time the 'marginalia' first came to light.

My immediate thoughts were that there was an innocent explanation for the points I had noticed, i.e. the obvious fact that two different pencils had been used (by Swanson) and that the second entry may have been made at a later time. Also the fact that one set was crammed into the limited space of the margins of the page (138) and that the second was written on a blank page with no such limitation could account for the different writing. Also the marginal writing had the soft base of other pages below it whilst the endpaper writing had the hard rear board of the book as a base.

I did not discuss any further the points I had noticed as I did not wish our elderly, frail and hospitable host (Jim Swanson) might have taken offence and I actually did not doubt that the notes were genuine. Knowing how people will always put their own interpretation on such things, I knew that should I mention what I had seen there would have been an element who would accuse Jim Swanson of fakery and distress him over something that he obviously saw as important and reflecting well on the status of his grandfather. I therefore made no public mention of what I had seen.

I was, nonetheless, a little uneasy as I felt that it was something that should have been noted and discussed some twelve years earlier. I also noted that although the Home Office document examiner had seen photocopies of the 'marginalia' and Swanson's handwriting, and had declared them to be the same, no report of his examination had ever been made public. Indeed it seemed that there was no report, it was merely his opinion given in a letter (which had also never been made public).

My uneasiness manifested itself as a post on this site after Jim Swanson had passed away and was beyond being upset by the Internet ravings of Jack the Ripper aficionados. However, I factually presented my findings and interpretation of what I had seen for the edification of all. I was met with the expected response from the pro-Anderson/Polish Jew lobby and one semi-hysterical author actually suggested that I was committing libel. I pointed out that far from that I was merely posting facts and that I did actually say that I still believed the annotations to be genuine. However, if written at different times this could have a bearing on the accuracy of the notes.

It is a great pity that this has resulted in such acrimony and disputation but I still feel that I did the right thing in pointing out the inconsistencies in the handwriting. I, too, may be criticized for failing to properly take it up when I first noticed it, but, as stated, I had my reasons for not doing so.

[Chris]

So what can we learn - if we wish to ... - from this? Yes, that´s it: Parkinson´s disease is a disease that produces changes in a person´s handwriting that are typical for this exact disease.

That is very misleading. The article describes only a comparison with patients with Parkinson's and a control group. It presents no evidence that the effects of Parkinson's can be distinguished by this method from the effects of other conditions. Obviously that would be necessary for Parkinson's to be diagnosed in this way.

What the article is saying is that such tests might "hint at the presence of the disease" [my emphasis], and that "patients can be referred to a doctor for further treatment and testing if necessary". Not that the test in itself is diagnostic of Parkinson's Disease.

[Fisherman]

That is very misleading. The article describes only a comparison with patients with Parkinson's and a control group. It presents no evidence that the effects of Parkinson's can be distinguished by this method from the effects of other conditions. Obviously that would be necessary for Parkinson's to be diagnosed in this way.

What the article is saying is that such tests might "hint at the presence of the disease" [my emphasis], and that "patients can be referred to a doctor for further treatment and testing if necessary". Not that the test in itself is diagnostic of Parkinson's Disease.

You may want to read my next post too, Chris. Otherwise you may be the misleading part here. Parkinson´s, as well as other diseases, show typical traits that are discernible to a document examiner. I´ll be perfectly happy to provide further information to put this beyond doubt, if you insist that I mislead. Just let me know, and I´ll provide the material,

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fish,

This is interesting research, of course - and may well have an impact on documentary analysis in the future.

However, it was only published last month. Perhaps you can explain how you think Dr Davies came to be both aware of this research and trained to spot the specific signs of Parkinson's to which the research refers before the results of the study were released?

Thanks in advance