Swanson's notes on Stride's murder

[Joshua Rogan]

Maybe it's like one of those pictures you can only see when you unfocus your gaze?

Surely there's some software that can tell which layer of writing is on top, and strip it away...?

[Errata]

Maybe it's like one of those pictures you can only see when you unfocus your gaze?

Surely there's some software that can tell which layer of writing is on top, and strip it away...?

"When Lord? When the hell do I get to see the goddamn sailboat?"

[Wickerman]

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

And to think, today of all days I just had "glasses required" removed from my driving license..
Perhaps a touch premature....my eyes are watering with all this!

[Paddy]

I think the first bit of second part says
"If it was that time it cannot be "
Pat...

[Paddy]

Bit more maybe

"If it was that time it cannot be the woman " bla bla bla "Church Road" bla ??

Pat....

[Pandora]

Bit more maybe

"If it was that time it cannot be the woman " bla bla bla "Church Road" bla ??

Pat....

The only thing I can see clearly (for want of a better word) in that 2nd paragraph is 1.35 - so it seems he is definitely referring to the time again. If you can see "Church Road", I commend you, most of the remainder of that sentence looks like spaghetti to me.

[Pandora]

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.

Agreed. Although I don't think it says "Liz", I do think the first initial of that word could be a capital "L".

Without a higher resolution image to begin with, it's too hard to really clean up that text though.

[Hamrammr]

Agreed, just the "definitely" and "been" need to be the other way around.

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

I agree. The above is the most likely interpretation of the sentence. Does sound odd with the placement of the 'been,' but this could be a mistake. Maybe even why he scribbled the whole thing out!

[Hamrammr]

Does anyone know the process for obtaining high resolution copies of these documents from the national archives? I presume they're still kept at Kew? The collection of documents this comes from http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-...pper+documetns was first published 13 years ago, so presumably a better scan might be obtained. I'll look into it.

Meanwhile . . . I might read through this report including the (mustn't say 'm' word) margin notes, to try to guess what Swanson might have scribbled there. What's most likely, sadly, is that it's a mistake, nonsense, or something he didn't think ought to be there. Sadly the last one is least likely.

I hope no one thinks I'm winding them up with this, by the way! It's not a practical joke! But apologies for sore eyes/headaches. Please do take regular breaks away from your workstations.

[Hamrammr]

I might pop to Kew tomorrow and see if I can photograph the original. I wouldn't mind Hi-res copies of the other margin notes on this document. Hopefully the scribble will be a lot clearer.

[Robert]

Could even be 'For Christ's sake don't forget wedding anniversary.'

[Robert]

Posting for cross-reference :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25222

[Pcdunn]

Interesting comments at JTR Forum. The last comment about an official thinking the witnesses related to Stride, and not Eddowes, and questioning the timing in the report, but scratching out the note afterwards is very logical.

[David Orsam]

I might pop to Kew tomorrow and see if I can photograph the original. I wouldn't mind Hi-res copies of the other margin notes on this document. Hopefully the scribble will be a lot clearer.

Hi Mamrammr,

If, as I believe to be the case, the file reference for this document is HO 144/221/A49301C I fear that it is only available to view as a rather poor copy on microfilm at the National Archives.

Clearly Evans & Skinner had access to the original in 2002 but I'm not sure this is possible today, at least not without special permission.

I don't want to put you off your visit though in case I'm wrong but thought you would appreciate the warning.

[Hamrammr]

Hi Mamrammr,

If, as I believe to be the case, the file reference for this document is HO 144/221/A49301C I fear that it is only available to view as a rather poor copy on microfilm at the National Archives.

Clearly Evans & Skinner had access to the original in 2002 but I'm not sure this is possible today, at least not without special permission.

I don't want to put you off your visit though in case I'm wrong but thought you would appreciate the warning.

Hi David,

Thanks for the thought. Much appreciated. I did go to the archives today, and you are right the original documents are not easily accessible. I did go through the microfiche and found what I was after. I'm going to post a couple of links to several interesting things that caught my eye, but I was pressed for time so will go back again sometime and go through the whole tape. There is a LOT on there!

Thanks,

Dean