1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.
2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.
3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.
7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
9. Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.
(http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm)
I was going to join in the counter reformation, but when I saw the price of the granite slabs it was more than my budget could handle, so I stuck with the original linoleum.
(Yes, he's trying to lighten it up here)
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
You seem to forget that, while under the influence of rabbinical scholars who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (a group Jesus called "spiritually blind") Jerome's initial opinion was against the LXX; but he later included the deuterocanonicals in his translation precisely because he did not want to rely on his own opinion, or on rabbinical opinion influenced by their ongoing anti-Christian polemic, but on the actual practice of the church. He went with the texts received and preserved by the churches for liturgical use.
That established a principle: The guiding authority is (1) not your opinion (2) not rabbinical opinion, but (3) the actual practice of the churches.
And that leads directly into your last point:
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.
That's an unfortunately common misunderstanding of the way texts are recognized as canonical. The Council invented nothing, added nothing and imposed nothing: it confirmed (that's an important key word, "confirmed") the identical list already approved by the Council of Florence (1442), which in turn is the same as the earliest canonical lists extant from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century.
This business of something lacking "full canonical status" unless it's confirmed in an Ecumenical Council is a misunderstanding of what a Council does.
Although the Canon wasn't dogmatically defined in an ecumenical council until 1546, it had been first believed by the ancient Christian community (sensus fidelium), then celebrated liturgically, then recognized by local synods, then supported by scholastic argument, and lastly --- many centuries later, and under pressure of controversy by dissenters --- formally defined as a dogma of the Faith.
That, by the way, is the normal course of doctrine: it is first anciently believed based on what was handed down to them; then celebrated; then clarified by argument, then defined. And not the other way around!
Ecumenical Councils are generally prodded into action by dissent, controversy, conflict. There's no particular reason to define things which nobody out there is bug-tussling about. The purpose of the Council is to confirm what has been received by the Church, and by the Church I mean Christendom: by believers East and West going back to Apostolic times.
Toodle-oo!