Kelly inquest/Smithkey

[Pierre]

Hi,

Does anyone here know if the printed handwritings in Smithkey (1998) are printed from the original handwritings from the Kelly inquest - or if they are printed from handwritten transcriptions of the original inquest papers written down shortly after or some time after the inquest?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Are you in possession of a copy of the book my dear boy?

[Pierre]

Are you in possession of a copy of the book my dear boy?

I managed to borrow it, yes. And you, David?

[David Orsam]

I don't, I'm afraid, my dear boy, but I can see online that Smithkey says:

"Through my research efforts, I was able to find a good facsimile of the inquest and witness statements of November 9th 1888. They are included in part of this work. A typed transcript is included as well. For the most part, the transcript has been typed exactly as it appears in the facsimile. I have only added some punctuation to make the document more readable. The facsimile itself has not been added in any way. It is exactly as it appears in the police file."

I have no idea what he means by "the police file".

If you can put up an image of a single page of what you are talking about I might be able to be of further assistance.

[Pierre]

I don't, I'm afraid, my dear boy, but I can see online that Smithkey says:

"Through my research efforts, I was able to find a good facsimile of the inquest and witness statements of November 9th 1888. They are included in part of this work. A typed transcript is included as well. For the most part, the transcript has been typed exactly as it appears in the facsimile. I have only added some punctuation to make the document more readable. The facsimile itself has not been added in any way. It is exactly as it appears in the police file."

I have no idea what he means by "the police file".

If you can put up an image of a single page of what you are talking about I might be able to be of further assistance.

The facsimile is just what he probably rightly assumes is a copy of the original inquest papers in handwriting.

But the original inquest papers, what he calls the facsimile, looks rather perfect and there are very few errors in it. So I thought perhaps they it be a transcription from an even earlier original.

But if that earlier original is lost, the police or the court having transcribed the first original to make it more readable, who would know anything about it?

Probably no one.

[David Orsam]

Why would you expect a lot of errors in the originals?

[Pierre]

Why would you expect a lot of errors in the originals?

You are misunderstanding this. It is not a question about "a lot of errors".

[David Orsam]

I'm not misunderstanding my dear boy. You said that, because there were "very few errors in it", it was or could be a transcription from an earlier original.

A more important factor is whether the documents are signed.

[Wickerman]

Here is a page from Smithkey's book, it shows the tale end of Barnet's testimony, followed by that of Bowyer, and the first line of Ledger's testimony.



For what it's worth I thought it was convention that after each witness had given their testimony they were required to sign the bottom of their statement.
This is shown to be the case with the Eddowes court record, but as we can see neither Barnet nor Bowyer signed or made their mark after what they said was taken down.

Does that mean that this copy is not of the original made on Nov. 12th, or was there no such convention?
Or, has Smithkey clipped their signatures in order to place these statements in succession?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;426463]

I'm not misunderstanding my dear boy. You said that, because there were "very few errors in it", it was or could be a transcription from an earlier original.

Yes, you are. I wrote "very few errors". And you wrote "a lot of errors".

I have not told you I "expect a lot of errors".

A more important factor is whether the documents are signed.

Just by the coroner and jurors who have signed after 2-3 pages at the start of the inquest but the witness statements are not signed.

[David Orsam]

Right, yes, this is a copy of a page from the copy depositions held at the London Metropolitan Archives as part of the Coroner's Papers for the North Eastern District and as transcribed in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook. They are not, however, the original signed depositions but a handwritten (but official) transcript.

[Pierre]

Here is a page from Smithkey's book, it shows the tale end of Barnet's testimony, followed by that of Bowyer, and the first line of Ledger's testimony.



For what it's worth I thought it was convention that after each witness had given their testimony they were required to sign the bottom of their statement.
This is shown to be the case with the Eddowes court record, but as we can see neither Barnet nor Bowyer signed or made their mark after what they said was taken down.

Does that mean that this copy is not of the original made on Nov. 12th, or was there no such convention?
Or, has Smithkey clipped their signatures in order to place these statements in succession?

And as I said, very few errors. That is why I am discussing these right now.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Just by the coroner and jurors who have signed after 2-3 pages at the start of the inquest

You are referring there to the Inquisition.

[David Orsam]

And as I said, very few errors. That is why I am discussing these right now.

I have no idea what "very few errors" has to do with anything but they are not the original depositions.

[Pierre]

I have no idea what "very few errors" has to do with anything but they are not the original depositions.

And what do you mean by "they are not the original depositions"?

And how do you know that?