Swanson's notes on Stride's murder

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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"?

[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]

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?

[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..."

[Errata]

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

[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

[Pandora]

Well, in all things context is king, so I suppose if we knew what the hell happened at 1:35, we might be able to tease out the second paragraph.

Watch it be something completely erroneous, and that's why it was crossed out. Because it was nonsensical. Thanks Swanson.

Agreed, in that he did scribble it out, so changed his mind about it in some way. But it is alongside the Lawende & co accounts for the Eddowes sighting, the mention of Stride is further down the page.

Probably making a mountain out of a molehill, but intriguing nonetheless.

[Errata]

Well, in all things context is king, so I suppose if we knew what the hell happened at 1:35, we might be able to tease out the second paragraph.

Watch it be something completely erroneous, and that's why it was crossed out. Because it was nonsensical. Thanks Swanson.

[Pandora]

1.35 account?

Yes, that looks possible.

The only witness accounts from that night, that are at 1:35am are from Lawende & co, so he might be commenting on them. If he's saying that Stride is already dead at that point, we already know that to be well documented, so it seems strange to mention it as a side note.

IF however he is suggesting that Eddowes is already dead by that time, then that would be very interesting, considering Lawende & co say they see her very much alive at that time.

[Robert]

1.35 account?

[Pandora]

I had another go at it with the new image Hamrammr attached, and I think there's actually an "&" in the gap between the "1.35" and "by" because the gap is too wide otherwise. And the main body of the text uses the squiggle symbol for "&" rather than spelling it out, so it matches.

So my final go at the first paragraph is this.

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



As for the second paragraph, apart from the first word being "If" and the time "1.35" showing up again, it is largely indecipherable. The second word looks suspiciously like ripper, but that might just be wishful thinking, and doesn't really make sense in context.

[Pandora]

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

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"