Swanson's notes on Stride's murder

[Wickerman]

So the first four lines appear to have been resolved?

1 - This is said to have been
2 - at 1.35 : by that time
3 - the woman had been certainly
4 - murdered.

Line 5 looks to me like:
5 - If the time 1.35 is correct the

Then line 6:
6 - woman was xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Wickerman]

This may be stupid, but do we know what it says on the page opposite the scribbling? Because if I were writing in the margins, I would write next to the thing I was writing about. And that may give us extra context clues.

Hi Errata.

If you can read this, you can see what the scribble is written opposite..

[Hunter]

Hi folks,

One little minor thing. The marginal notes in Chief Inspector Swanson's Oct. 19 report were not written by Swanson. It is understood that they were written by Permanent Under Secretary Godfrey Lushington.

[Errata]

This may be stupid, but do we know what it says on the page opposite the scribbling? Because if I were writing in the margins, I would write next to the thing I was writing about. And that may give us extra context clues.

[Pandora]

[QUOTE=Hamrammr;371620]



Here's my attempt on the new image you got. I think the first paragraph is as we thought, but the 2nd paragraph still evades me.

[Hamrammr]

[Hamrammr]

Having a problem with the links above, so will try this way:

[I Am Sam]

I was able to translate all of the important parts.

It says: :"The murderer was seen at 1:35. After the Kelly murder, he was captured and made a full confession. Everything he said was consistent with the evidence. His name was (unreadable on this copy). I left the full report including the full signed confession at (again unreadable). This also includes a photo of Mary Kelly taken 2 weeks before her death.His family have also provided evidence that cannot be doubted. We had to keep the killer's identity a secret and deny we solved the case because (unreadable again). "

Boy, it sure said a lot, didn't it?

[Hamrammr]

I was pressed for time today but did get a new photo of the scribble. It probably won't reveal anything more, but might be worth using brightness/contrast on it. Shame the last few lines are illegible. Although I was whizzing through I did notice a couple of things that I found interesting. Here are the links:

New image of scribble: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...pshhezpkpx.jpg

Odd use of Lewin and Lawende when referring to the same witness, but the first use of 'Lewin' is not struck through whereas subsequent uses are. Odd. http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...pspbobzgsb.jpg

Mention of the writing on the wall at Goulston Street: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psczwwiyme.jpg

and: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psz8mpztwm.jpg

Report of advice to use decoys (officers dressed as women): http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psb0v5gcmi.jpg

Report of advice to use 'cat.' Presumably a cat o' nine tails (whip): http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...psfyldimdu.jpg

Mention of a 'Packer' claiming the ripper was his cousin. Presumably this isn't the grocer Matthew Packer, or he'd have mentioned it in his statements to the press and police: http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/p...pstria3hiu.jpg

Hope these are of some interest!

Dean

[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

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

Posting for cross-reference :

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

[Robert]

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

[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.