Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > The Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 14th, 2016, 12:18 PM   #21
Debra Arif
Sausage brain
 
Debra Arif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,280
Default

I found this later one posted by Dean a bit easier to see. I switched the negative effect to view it.
Looking at that, I think Chris is correct with 'certainly' after all.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg swanson report.jpg (322.5 KB, 43 views)
Debra Arif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2016, 02:31 PM   #22
CGP
Former Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob House View Post
I am wondering why, in the image posted, the writing on the left appears to be in halftone, while the writing on the right is much clearer? (see below) Is there any chance we can get a better scan of the writing?
I presume the National Archives could provide a high-resolution scan, despite the fact that the original document is not normally produced. But we may have to organise a whip-round, because the cost is 35.
https://images.nationalarchives.gov....on/viewContent

(NB It may be worth querying that figure, as it doesn't seem to appear in the fees regulations that are linked from that web page!)
CGP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2016, 08:50 PM   #23
Packers Stem
Registered User
 
Packers Stem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra Arif View Post
I think that sounds about right, Chris (and Pat). It makes sense (to me anyway) in the context of the facing page too where discussion of the Mitre Square witness only giving a description of the woman seen with a man at 1.35- the writer of the marginal note obviously thinking this time and sighting reference was to the Stride murder, as I think someone may have already suggested somewhere?
Unless Eddowes TOD was a little earlier than we believe it to be...
__________________
You can lead a horse to water....
Packers Stem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2016, 08:57 PM   #24
Phil Carter
Author
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Packers Stem View Post
Unless Eddowes TOD was a little earlier than we believe it to be...
I dare not even comment. .except to say..I believe I mentioned it years ago. It got shouted down.

I'll go back to closing my ears now.

Thanks for writing it Packers Stem..


Phil
__________________
from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars
Phil Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 03:30 AM   #25
CGP
Former Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 623
Default

Looking at Pandora's latest version with the scribbling removed, I am reassured that what I suggested is essentially right, give or take a word or two:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...4&postcount=65

The bit I'm least happy with is the word before the second "1.35".
CGP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 12:10 PM   #26
Debra Arif
Sausage brain
 
Debra Arif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGP View Post
Looking at Pandora's latest version with the scribbling removed, I am reassured that what I suggested is essentially right, give or take a word or two:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...4&postcount=65

The bit I'm least happy with is the word before the second "1.35".
I thought I saw another 1.3
'If 1.3? to 1.35 is correct' ?
Debra Arif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 12:14 PM   #27
Debra Arif
Sausage brain
 
Debra Arif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,280
Default

'If therefore 1.35 is correct' ?
Debra Arif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 12:23 PM   #28
CGP
Former Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra Arif View Post
'If therefore 1.35 is correct' ?
Yes! That seems right to me.

So the whole thing would read:

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

If therefore 1.35 is correct the
woman seen could not have
[been] the murdered woman.
CGP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 12:30 PM   #29
Debra Arif
Sausage brain
 
Debra Arif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGP View Post
Yes! That seems right to me.

So the whole thing would read:

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

If therefore 1.35 is correct the
woman seen could not have
[been] the murdered woman.
I agree.

And the reason it was scribbled out being the fact that the writer had obviously confused the mention of the sighting of Eddowes at 1.35, thinking it was supposed to be a sighting of Stride, murdered earlier and already found dead by 1.35.
Debra Arif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2016, 01:16 PM   #30
Cris Malone
Historian
 
Cris Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Jackson, Tennessee
Posts: 2,441
Default

And that's all it was about. Lushington got confused over Swanson comparing the men seen by Schwartz and Lawende. He realized it and scribbled it out.

Richard Jone's book, Casebook has a fine color facsimile of Swanson's report as a collectible if anyone is interested in this often referred to document.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________
"Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Cris Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022