Swanson's notes on Stride's murder

[Joshua Rogan]

This is fun, can I play?

The main text is describing the Lawende sighting, so it seems to me the marginal text is referring to Eddowes. Maybe.

Looks like a ":" in the first line, rather than a "&", but the meaning is the same.

Second line may be "If [we say?] 1.35 it can't be concluded...." (or "excluded")?

More guesswork than anything though

[Errata]

The first two words of the second paragraph are "If Liz"

[Pandora]

If the first paragraph refers to Lawende & co's witness testimony, then the second paragraph could begin with "If Lawende's 1.35 account is...."

Thus reading so far...

"This is said to have been at 1.35 : by that time the woman had been definitely murdered.

If Lawende's 1.35 account is..."

[Wickerman]

Hi,

Not sure if this is going to help much. I've tried scanning/photographing the scribble again but the document I have isn't the best scan even though I'm sure it was the best that could be done at the time (2002). Anyway, below are links to another shot, plus the page of the report before the scribble and the page the scribble is on. At this point in the report Swanson is trying to draw a comparison between the descriptions of the murderer in Berner Street and at Mitre Square given by witnesses. I've had a go at taking away the scribble myself (below), but haven't really got any further than anyone else.

Previous page:

http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp190/Dean_Carter/JtR/Swanson20Report20-20Elizabeth20Stride20Prev20Page_zpsb0dlu5aa.jpg

Scribble page: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psr8wecd8h.jpg

Margin notes with scribble: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psllsfvt7t.jpg

With some scribble removed: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psg6x4n9jj.jpg

Thanks for those links.
Now we can use the full pages of Swanson's handwriting to compare the way he formed his letters, it should help sort the y's from the g's, or the l's from the t's, etc.

Always assuming this problematical marginal note was written by Swanson?

[Errata]

If the first paragraph refers to Lawende & co's witness testimony, then the second paragraph could begin with "If Lawende's 1.35 account is...."

Thus reading so far...

"This is said to have been at 1.35 : by that time the woman had been definitely murdered.

If Lawende's 1.35 account is..."

I thought it was account too, but the c's are right in line for the string of c's he used to obliterate the text. I think the rhythm is too perfect for it to be part of the actual word. I could be wrong though.

[Wickerman]

If Lawende's 1.35 account is..."

Not sure if this helps or hinders but, Swanson referred to Lawende in his report as "Mr Lewin".
Does it look like "Lewin" or "Lawende"?

[Pandora]

This is fun, can I play?

The main text is describing the Lawende sighting, so it seems to me the marginal text is referring to Eddowes. Maybe.

Looks like a ":" in the first line, rather than a "&", but the meaning is the same.

Second line may be "If [we say?] 1.35 it can't be concluded...." (or "excluded")?

More guesswork than anything though

That ":" was me rubbing out too much of the original I think, because the "&" shape Swanson used was a similar shape as his squiggle out line, see the pic attached where his "&" is attached to "salt" in "pepper & salt".

[Pandora]

Not sure if this helps or hinders but, Swanson referred to Lawende in his report as "Mr Lewin".
Does it look like "Lewin" or "Lawende"?

Yes I was just looking at that, I think it looks more like Lewin than Lawende, so I think it's a plausible start to the second paragraph.

[Errata]

Not sure if this helps or hinders but, Swanson referred to Lawende in his report as "Mr Lewin".
Does it look like "Lewin" or "Lawende"?

I think it's liz.

[Wickerman]

Second line may be "If [we say?] 1.35 it can't be concluded...." (or "excluded")?

I'm thinking:
"If the time 1.35 is correct....."?

"If the xxxx 1.35 is correct..."

The xxx must be "time"?

[Wickerman]

I think it's liz.

[ATTACH]17469[/ATTACH]

But Liz is not connected to the time of 1.35, she was dead by then.
Eddowes has a connection to 1.35.
I can't see any context that would cause him to connect Liz with 1.35.

[Wickerman]

"If the time 1.35 is correct the
woman had...."?

[Wickerman]

"If the time 1.35 is correct the
woman had walked to that...."?


This is killing my eyes!

[Errata]

But Liz is not connected to the time of 1.35, she was dead by then.
Eddowes has a connection to 1.35.
I can't see any context that would cause him to connect Liz with 1.35.

I KNOW. And yet it clearly says Liz to me.

Stare at something in the middle distance to ease your eyes. You may have the impulse to squint. Curb that impulse

[Errata]

I think the secret is to get the rhythm of the Cs crossing out the text in order to anticipate where it's going to hit in the word, and then be able to extract the Cs from that word. Visually.

Not that I'm having any success at it, but I think that's the key.