Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • By the way, Rob House's animation in his post #770 nicely conveys my point, as it very possibly shows the marginalia in the chronology of their occurrence. Possibly.
    Please notice that the margin addition (on the left) is not initialized (“D.S.S.“), if I'm not mistaken.
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Well its for sure they werent taking from the bodies at the scenes of the crimes !

      And I should remind you it was an apron piece perhaps you would remind me where it is written that she was actually wearing an apron
      Inquest Testimony of PC George Hutt

      Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. I found the deceased sober, and after she had given her name and address, she was allowed to leave. I pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage, and said, "This way, missus." She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please, pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter.) She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn to the left.
      The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.
      The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting inspector on duty.
      [Coroner] Is it usual to discharge prisoners who have been locked up for being drunk at all hours of the night? - Certainly.
      [Coroner] How often did you visit the prisoners? - About every half-hour. At first the deceased remained asleep; but at a quarter to twelve she was awake, and singing a song to herself, as it were. I went to her again at half-past twelve, and she then asked when she would be able to get out. I replied: "Shortly." She said, "I am capable of taking care of myself now."
      Mr. Crawford: Did she tell you where she was going? - No. About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."
      [Coroner] Was that her parting remark? - That was in the station yard. I said, "Serve you right; you have no right to get drunk."
      [Coroner] You supposed she was going home? - I did.
      [Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
      [Coroner] What is the distance from Mitre-square to your station? - About 400 yards.
      [Coroner] Do you know the direct route to Flower and Dean-street? - No.
      A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.


      And inquest testimony of PC Robinson

      City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
      The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.
      [Coroner] Did any one appear to be in her company when you found her? - No one in particular.
      Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing. The Foreman: What guided you in determining whether the woman was drunk or not?
      Witness: Her appearance.
      The Foreman: I ask you because I know of a case in which a person was arrested for being drunk who had not tasted anything intoxicating for eight or nine hours.
      [Coroner] You are quite sure this woman was drunk? - She smelt very strongly of drink.


      And inventory taken of Eddowes belongings at the scene by Inspector Collard.

      Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
      Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
      Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
      Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
      Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
      Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
      Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
      Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
      White calico chemise
      No drawers or stays
      Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
      1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
      1 large white pocket handkerchief
      1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
      2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
      1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
      Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

      Possessions

      2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
      2 short black clay pipes
      1 tin box containing tea
      1 tin box containing sugar
      1 tin matchbox, empty
      12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
      1 piece coarse linen, white
      1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
      1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
      6 pieces soap
      1 small tooth comb
      1 white handle table knife
      1 metal teaspoon
      1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
      1 ball hemp
      1 piece of old white apron with repair
      Several buttons and a thimble
      Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
      Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road
      Portion of a pair of spectacles
      1 red mitten


      Apologies for the length of the thread and the fact its off topic.

      Monty




      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

      Comment


      • [QUOTE=mariab;163397]Quote:

        Of course you can, Ally and Phil. The purple pencil text is UNDERLINED by the black/green pencil, so it's obvious that the purple part came first.
        I disagree that the underlining is in blackish pencil. It is the same color as the w, t and h in the purple...letters beginning new lines which is probably down to pressure accounting for differences in shade. It is of course impossible to tell without seeing it in person, but there are letters in the purple text that are the exact same shade as the underlining.


        Not to mention the content of the text, or the way the page's blank spaces have been used.
        The way the blank spaces are used proves nothing. My old texts are full of me starting notes on the left side, and even if it runs down, I maintain "column" form for clarity and start new lines in the blank ends.

        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I'm Wicked through and through.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Monty View Post
          Inquest Testimony of PC George Hutt

          Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. I found the deceased sober, and after she had given her name and address, she was allowed to leave. I pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage, and said, "This way, missus." She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please, pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter.) She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn to the left.
          The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.
          The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting inspector on duty.
          [Coroner] Is it usual to discharge prisoners who have been locked up for being drunk at all hours of the night? - Certainly.
          [Coroner] How often did you visit the prisoners? - About every half-hour. At first the deceased remained asleep; but at a quarter to twelve she was awake, and singing a song to herself, as it were. I went to her again at half-past twelve, and she then asked when she would be able to get out. I replied: "Shortly." She said, "I am capable of taking care of myself now."
          Mr. Crawford: Did she tell you where she was going? - No. About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."
          [Coroner] Was that her parting remark? - That was in the station yard. I said, "Serve you right; you have no right to get drunk."
          [Coroner] You supposed she was going home? - I did.
          [Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
          [Coroner] What is the distance from Mitre-square to your station? - About 400 yards.
          [Coroner] Do you know the direct route to Flower and Dean-street? - No.
          A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.


          And inquest testimony of PC Robinson

          City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
          The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.
          [Coroner] Did any one appear to be in her company when you found her? - No one in particular.
          Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing. The Foreman: What guided you in determining whether the woman was drunk or not?
          Witness: Her appearance.
          The Foreman: I ask you because I know of a case in which a person was arrested for being drunk who had not tasted anything intoxicating for eight or nine hours.
          [Coroner] You are quite sure this woman was drunk? - She smelt very strongly of drink.


          And inventory taken of Eddowes belongings at the scene by Inspector Collard.

          Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
          Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
          Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
          Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
          Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
          Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
          Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
          Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
          White calico chemise
          No drawers or stays
          Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
          1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
          1 large white pocket handkerchief
          1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
          2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
          1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
          Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

          Possessions

          2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
          2 short black clay pipes
          1 tin box containing tea
          1 tin box containing sugar
          1 tin matchbox, empty
          12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
          1 piece coarse linen, white
          1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
          1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
          6 pieces soap
          1 small tooth comb
          1 white handle table knife
          1 metal teaspoon
          1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
          1 ball hemp
          1 piece of old white apron with repair
          Several buttons and a thimble
          Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
          Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road
          Portion of a pair of spectacles
          1 red mitten


          Apologies for the length of the thread and the fact its off topic.

          Monty
          Conflicting evidence in fact there is no evidence that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron.

          In fact its to the contary as you have highlighted and i will re iterate as described in the following

          1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)
          2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)
          3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped at 3am on arrival at the mortuary) This is clearly listed amongst her possessions

          If she had been wearing the apron surely it would have been documented as such instead of describing pieces after all the piece found in Goulston st was not that large so as to make the apron nothing more than a piece

          Apologies for going off thread but issue need to be clarified
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-30-2011, 11:30 PM.

          Comment


          • I have to ask this... and I realize I may be throwing myself on a grenade here...

            What is the relevance of the Swanson Marginalia? If it can be forged and right, or genuine and wrong, (as are parts of the text itself) then what part of it real or faked can be used as evidence? It seems to me that at best (if it's genuine) all we know is that Swanson thinks Kosminski is the killer. Which is interesting, but hardly constitutes either proof or a positive identification. So I feel like I am missing something as far as significance goes...
            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

            Comment


            • Out of respect to this thread, Im not going to repsond here with regardings your post above Trevor.

              Ive moved it here.

              http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1779


              Monty




              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Errata View Post
                I have to ask this... and I realize I may be throwing myself on a grenade here...

                What is the relevance of the Swanson Marginalia? If it can be forged and right, or genuine and wrong, (as are parts of the text itself) then what part of it real or faked can be used as evidence? It seems to me that at best (if it's genuine) all we know is that Swanson thinks Kosminski is the killer. Which is interesting, but hardly constitutes either proof or a positive identification. So I feel like I am missing something as far as significance goes...
                It is significant because without it, Ripperologists would have one less thing to argue about. We might have to go out and get actual lives.

                Let all Oz be agreed;
                I'm Wicked through and through.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                  I disagree that the underlining is in blackish pencil. It is the same color as the w, t and h in the purple...letters beginning new lines which is probably down to pressure accounting for differences in shade. It is of course impossible to tell without seeing it in person, but there are letters in the purple text that are the exact same shade as the underlining.
                  Obviously it would be ideal to see the real document, or a color xerox copy of it, but in Rob House's photo in his post #770 it's clearly visible that the purple annotations came first, followed by the underlying of them and the further annotations by the black/greenish pencil. I don't see any letters in the purple text looking in another color, as you claim. What (obviously) makes sense is that the purple colored text came first, then came its underlining (in black). It appears that also the end notes came in black, which further corroborates my interpretation.


                  Originally posted by Ally View Post
                  The way the blank spaces are used proves nothing. My old texts are full of me starting notes on the left side, and even if it runs down, I maintain "column" form for clarity and start new lines in the blank ends.
                  What you're describing fits with jotting down notes pertaining directly to the content of a printed book, or correcting a student paper, or editing an essay.
                  However, when working with manuscript sources from the 19th century, I've NEVER, EVER experienced anyone not using the fat blank end of the paper first, before retreating to the margins. Most frequently the margins are used just for general short remarks, or for annotations/corrections pertaining to the same line of the printed text.
                  Still, I'm not claiming that the way people use blank space for annotations is an exact science. It's the different pencils/inks and the content of the additions which are most dependable in figuring out the chronology in the origins of a text.
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Errata View Post
                    I have to ask this... and I realize I may be throwing myself on a grenade here...

                    What is the relevance of the Swanson Marginalia? If it can be forged and right, or genuine and wrong, (as are parts of the text itself) then what part of it real or faked can be used as evidence? It seems to me that at best (if it's genuine) all we know is that Swanson thinks Kosminski is the killer. Which is interesting, but hardly constitutes either proof or a positive identification. So I feel like I am missing something as far as significance goes...
                    The answer to that is quite clear there are ripperologists who have championed Kosminski as the ripper because the name Kosminski appeared in the MM.

                    There is no concrete evidence to confirm that the Aaron Kosminski who has been referred to is one and the same, and no direct evidence to suggest he was the ripper. The name Kosminski written in this marginalia adds some weight to their suspicions.

                    Take the name away from the marginalia and the case against Kosminski being the ripper is back to being relied upon through the MM which we know is unreliable.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ally View Post
                      It is significant because without it, Ripperologists would have one less thing to argue about. We might have to go out and get actual lives.
                      Hi Ally,

                      ROFLMAO!!! So true!!! Gets my vote for must the cogent posting so far on this entire thread!!!

                      Best wishes,
                      Zodiac.
                      And thus I clothe my naked villainy
                      With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
                      And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mariab View Post
                        I don't see any letters in the purple text looking in another color, as you claim.
                        Look again then.

                        However, when working with manuscript sources from the 19th century, I've NEVER, EVER experienced anyone not using the fat blank end of the paper first
                        That might be at all relevant if we were looking at marginalia from the 19th century. Since we aren't though....

                        Still, I'm not claiming that the way people use blank space for annotations is an exact science.
                        That's good. It's nice to know that not everyone takes pure supposition as science.

                        Let all Oz be agreed;
                        I'm Wicked through and through.

                        Comment


                        • It is significant because without it, Ripperologists would have one less thing to argue about. We might have to go out and get actual lives.

                          He he - so true, love it!!

                          Tj
                          It's not about what you know....it's about what you can find out

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            And I should remind you it was an apron piece perhaps you would remind me where it is written that she was actually wearing an apron
                            And the rest of the apron found at the murder scene was what? She was carrying it around, planning on using it for the next 3 months? Besides, there was no sanitary equipment found with the body. (But I'm sure you'll say it was stolen, along with the organs that were stolen at the morgue. And the rest of the apron, fitting to the cut piece, was deposited at the morgue, to murk the waters. Case closed, as the Ripper killings were actually a organ harvesting conspiracy!)
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • Originally Posted by mariab
                              I don't see any letters in the purple text looking in another color, as you claim.
                              Originally posted by Ally View Post
                              Look again then.
                              Sorry Ally, no need to look, as it's pretty clear to me. You can't possibly be implying that 3 letters inside of the purple text are written in a different color? Swanson was not exactly a 5 year old coloring children's books. On the other side, I would have expected a text jotted down by Kozminski himself to have looked like what you're saying.

                              Originally posted by Ally View Post
                              That might be at all relevant if we were looking at marginalia from the 19th century. Since we aren't though....
                              Swanson was born and raised and went to school in the 19th century. Or are you supposing that by 1901 a (thick red margin) line was drawn and everything changed? ;-)
                              Still, I'm not pretending that the use of blank paper space is a valuable argument.

                              And I do (sorta) have a life. I've even had a weekend off. (Though pretty lame, 'cause no snow and no riding, stupid spring weather in the middle of winter.)
                              Best regards,
                              Maria

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mariab View Post
                                And the rest of the apron found at the murder scene was what? She was carrying it around, planning on using it for the next 3 months? Besides, there was no sanitary equipment found with the body. (But I'm sure you'll say it was stolen, along with the organs that were stolen at the morgue. And the rest of the apron, fitting to the cut piece, was deposited at the morgue, to murk the waters. Case closed, as the Ripper killings were actually a organ harvesting conspiracy!)
                                Now I am not going to get embroiled in any more arguments on this matter. It is pointless. The various theories have been put forward and discussed for some time now.

                                The evidence is there for all to see that the organs were not removed by the killer. I am happy to stand by what I have suggested and gone to great lengths to prove that. To date no one has made a case to show the opposite despite you and others continuosly trying to shoot it down in flames.

                                As to the killer cutting the apron piece for the various reasons suggested that again I believe I have disproved that.

                                I am not being cocky or arrogant as some may suggest the facts speak for themselves. I simply gather those facts, assess and evaluate them and report on the findings.

                                It is then a matter for people to accept or disregard them. What does p..s me off is the people that pour scorn on the issues are the people that are unable to make a case to disprove the facts by producing any evidence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X