Kelly inquest/Smithkey

[David Orsam]

But have you actually seen the original and not just the copies?

Yes, of course.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, you asked a question in the OP of this thread and I have answered it. The printed handwritings in Smithkey are printed from the original papers of the coroner as held in the London Metropolitan Archives. Those papers include unsigned depositions only, so you can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw from that.

I can't answer every single question that pops into your head...

But have you actually seen the original and not just the copies?

[David Orsam]

So why do you refer to #36?

My dear boy, you asked a question in the OP of this thread and I have answered it. The printed handwritings in Smithkey are printed from the original papers of the coroner as held in the London Metropolitan Archives. Those papers include unsigned depositions only, so you can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw from that.

I can't answer every single question that pops into your head...

[Pierre]

I haven't said it is my dear boy.

So why do you refer to #36?

[David Orsam]

But the question of the jury perhaps having signed two copies is not a solution to the problem of the missing original.

I haven't said it is my dear boy.

[Pierre]

It does not, my dear boy, so the word "if", which I understand you normally find very distasteful, is not appropriate here and you should have said "And as it does not..."

I refer you, my dear boy, to what I said in #36 above.

But the question of the jury perhaps having signed two copies is not a solution to the problem of the missing original.

[David Orsam]

And if it does not

It does not, my dear boy, so the word "if", which I understand you normally find very distasteful, is not appropriate here and you should have said "And as it does not..."

where are the signed depositions and why was the original source transcribed?

I refer you, my dear boy, to what I said in #36 above.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, if I understand you correctly, the answer is very simple.

All of the documents in the LMA file (MJ/SPC/NE/376/1-11), including the depositions, are originals, written in ink (i.e. not photocopies). But none of the depositions in the LMA file are signed.

The LMA file contains all the documents held by the LMA. Therefore, if your question actually is: "Does the LMA hold signed original depositions from the Kelly inquest?", the answer is: No, it does not.

And if it does not, where are the signed depositions and why was the original source transcribed?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

My dear boy, if I understand you correctly, the answer is very simple.

All of the documents in the LMA file (MJ/SPC/NE/376/1-11), including the depositions, are originals, written in ink (i.e. not photocopies). But none of the depositions in the LMA file are signed.

The LMA file contains all the documents held by the LMA. Therefore, if your question actually is: "Does the LMA hold signed original depositions from the Kelly inquest?", the answer is: No, it does not.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I don't understand what you are talking about and you don't seem to be addressing me in a genuine spirit of enquiry so I can't help you other than to say that "LMA" means London Metropolitan Archives and the LMA file is the only one that known to exist: there is no other source available in the LMA or anywhere else.

No, you donīt understand although it is easy my dear David.

I am addressing you in a genuine spirit of enquiry.

You do not need to tell me the meaning of LMA. You do it just to give the impression that I am the one who does not understand, when indeed it is you.

Now, there are photocopies of the two different sources we are discussing, i.e. the original inquisition and the transcription of the original deposition.

These photocopies are in the LMA.

The problem, obviously, is that the part of the photocopies which consists of the transcription does not show us the original deposition.

And therefore, the question is wether the original exists in the LMA or not.

You see David, archives contain many sources. And there may be another source in the LMA, i.e. the original source.

The reason for this hypothesis is, firstly, that the photocopies shown to the public do not contain it, and, secondly, this:

"The inquest papers into the death of Marie Kelly are the only papers
surviving within the Middlesex Coroners’ records (MJ/SPC/NE/376/1-11).
Photocopies of these inquest papers are kept in our Information Area with the
catalogues of the Middlesex Sessions Papers relating to coroners’ inquests MJ/SP/C."

(http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/thing...er-murders.pdf)

And in Leaflet 41:

"As the records are uncatalogued, access is by prior appointment only. However photocopies of the inquest papers relating to Marie Kelly, one of Jack the Ripper’s victims, are available on the open shelves with the catalogues of MJ/SP/C." (My bold).

(http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/thing...-middlesex.pdf)

As you can see, there is a set of photocopies available to the public on the open shelves. And then there are the sources in the LMA, which is accessable by appointment only.

So the question is if the original of the deposition, i.e. not a transcription, also is in the LMA and can be accessed by appointment.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

My dear boy, I don't understand what you are talking about and you don't seem to be addressing me in a genuine spirit of enquiry so I can't help you other than to say that "LMA" means London Metropolitan Archives and the LMA file is the only one that known to exist: there is no other source available in the LMA or anywhere else.

[Joshua Rogan]

A common admonition to this day, I well reeberone OLD Judge saying to a witness "Watch the Judicial pencil, I need to keep up" even though those proceedings were being recorded.

Cheers Gut.
For info, here is the line I was thinking of, from the Daily News 14th Sept;


"The evidence of Mr. Phillips, the doctor, was lengthy and minute, and was given line by line to be written down."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;426582]

My dear boy, you asked a question in the OP of this thread and I have answered it. The printed handwritings in Smithkey are printed from the original papers of the coroner as held in the London Metropolitan Archives. Those papers include unsigned depositions only, so you can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw from that.

He had a facsimile, i.e. a copy of the original Inquisition and the transcription of the original deposition.

I can't answer every single question that pops into your head

Of course you canīt.

but in respect of the "original inquisition", it has to be asked if the one in the LMA file actually is the original Inquisition. Those in the Old Bailey files are invariably on large parchment whereas the Inquisition in the LMA file is on normal A4 paper (although that may because, for those sent to the Old Bailey, someone is being charged with murder so has different wording).

That depends on what you mean by the "LMA file".

One version of the LMA file is a photocopy on A4 of the inquest papers.

Smithkey used such a copy. And that is what we see in his book.

So this is one version of "the LMA file". The public one.

But the question is if there is another source available in LMA, i.e. the original.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;426582]

I don't know what you mean when you say that it looks like "two documents have been pieced together by someone".

After the Sum of Sums we have The Informations of Witnesses... and that part looks as the original.

But the deposition following, starting with Joseph Barnett, is not the original, so why is that part pieced together with The Informations of Witnesses...?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Why is the original inquisition together with a handwritten transcription of the original depositions do you think?

And why does it look like these two documents have been pieced together by someone?

My dear boy, you asked a question in the OP of this thread and I have answered it. The printed handwritings in Smithkey are printed from the original papers of the coroner as held in the London Metropolitan Archives. Those papers include unsigned depositions only, so you can draw whatever conclusion you want to draw from that.

I can't answer every single question that pops into your head but in respect of the "original inquisition", it has to be asked if the one in the LMA file actually is the original Inquisition. Those in the Old Bailey files are invariably on large parchment whereas the Inquisition in the LMA file is on normal A4 paper (although that may because, for those sent to the Old Bailey, someone is being charged with murder so has different wording). I don't know what is in Smithkey but there are two versions of the Inquisitions in the LMA file, one signed by the coroner and jury and one not signed by them. The one signed by them breaks off in mid sentence at one point where it says "...the Jurors aforesaid, upon their Oaths, do further say that such death was due to" and that's where it stops.

So I would not want to rule out that the jury signed two copies of the Inquisition, one to be sent to the Central Criminal Court if there was an arrest and one to be permanently retained with the coroner's papers, with only the latter being retained in storage.

I don't know what you mean when you say that it looks like "two documents have been pieced together by someone".