Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Swanson's notes on Stride's murder

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

  • #31
    Thanks, Cris. I was wondering what the little bit underneath the scribble said.

    Comment


    • #32
      The woman murdered in the City

      Comment


      • #33
        Beat me to it, Ed....good man.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          The woman murdered in the City
          Exactly my thoughts.


          Phil
          from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
            The woman murdered in the City
            I think that one's pretty obvious. I meant I wondered what it said when we could only see the word 'murdered' on the scan, as I mentioned earlier.

            Comment


            • #36
              Ha! Yes I thought it was obvious too! You should have said:

              'Thanks Cris. I had wondered what the little bit underneath the scribble said. But now I can read it clear as day!'

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                Ha! Yes I thought it was obvious too! You should have said:

                'Thanks Cris. I had wondered what the little bit underneath the scribble said. But now I can read it clear as day!'
                Yes - that would certainly help people who are confused by the distinction between "was wondering" and "am wondering".

                Comment


                • #38
                  And I might add - in case anyone else hasn't - the notes clearly aren't another Swanson marginalia as they weren't by him so the thread is mistitled.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                    And I might add - in case anyone else hasn't - the notes clearly aren't another Swanson marginalia as they weren't by him so the thread is mistitled.
                    Yes, that has already been discussed, on the first page of the thread.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I must have missed something. Some (especially on Casebook) seem to be as confused as Lushington was.

                      Well...here is the previous page in Swanson's report with extensive annotations by the permanent undersecretary trying to follow Swanson's train of thought. Notice he starts out with "This is rather confused" and goes on trying to reconcile the timings, leading to the mistaken presumption that he realized and scribbled out on the next page.

                      This document is full of annotations made so further questions might be asked of the CO...and they were. This isn't the highest detail scan I have for this, but maybe it is enough without exploding the page here.


                      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."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                        I must have missed something. Some (especially on Casebook) seem to be as confused as Lushington was.
                        Yes, several people on Casebook followed the original poster in thinking these annotations were written by Swanson. I did myself in my original post on this thread, but as soon as I looked up the context of the annotations, in response to HB's query, it was clear enough that these were comments on what Swanson had said, not comments by Swanson.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X