Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

new evidence: Ostrog's Banstead admission and release records at the LMA

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

  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
    Why's there a difference in the two transcriptions - yours and Chris's - with yours containing an extra description: "Demented, will scarcely answer questions"?
    You had me worried for a moment there, but checking a photo of the page that Rob kindly sent me a few months ago I see that phrase actually belongs to the next patient's entry.

    Leave a comment:


  • mariab
    replied
    Thank you so much Mark for directing my attention to this thread from 2008. I wish Rob or someone could have told me that Chris Phillips had gone through these records in 2008 already. What Chris has posted in the old thread from 2008 has its provenance from the exact same document {E-Llma H22/BAN/B/01/012} that I've consulted today, but for some reason Chris left out the “Demented, will scarcely answer questions" part, which is quite important, in my opinion. The pics Rob will hopefully post (as long as I email them to him) will prove the authenticity of the source.
    What I'm implying here is that Macnaghten might have known in May 1891 about Ostrog having been “demented“ and non responsive vs. “a dangerous criminal“, unless Macnaghten suspected that Ostrog was feigning lunacy, as implied in the letter quoted but NOT referenced by Philip Sugden (p. XVIII), which I'm still working on locating (plus, I'm trying to locate the Superintendant's answer to Macnaghten).

    Leave a comment:


  • m_w_r
    replied
    Hi Maria,

    Compare this thread, from nearly three years ago.

    Why's there a difference in the two transcriptions - yours and Chris's - with yours containing an extra description: "Demented, will scarcely answer questions"?

    Regards,

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • new evidence: Ostrog's Banstead admission and release records at the LMA

    Hello all,
    I was at the LMA today and I've located Ostrog's admission and release records at Banstead Hospital.
    Pics will follow, I'm about to email what I shot today to Rob Clack so that he can clean it up, reduce it via Photoshop (NOT manipulate it, as implied once by AP Wolf!!), and he'll probably post the pics himself in the next couple days.
    Below a transcription of the records:

    Admission:
    {E-Llma H22/BAN/B/01/012}
    admitted on May 7, 1891 (NOT on May 4th, as claimed by Philip Sugden) under the admission nr. 3.684: Michael Ostrog.
    Age: 58, marital status: not known, previous occupation: not known
    previous place of abode: St. Giles Workhouse, Union/County/Borough to which chargeable: Strand Union {corrected} County of London {added in red ink}
    Sent by whose authority: G. T.{?} Greville on May 4th 1891 {this is possible where from Sugden got his date of admission}
    medical certificate: W.C. Sheard

    Form of mental disorder:
    Has delusions of various kinds and is paralyzed on one side of face; muscular tremor due to sclerosis. Demented, will scarcely answer questions.


    Supposed cause of insanity*: not known
    *{Believe it or not, the majority of the Banstead inhabitants feature “masturbation“ as “cause of insanity“!!!}
    Bodily condition: much impaired

    Date of discharge: {E-Llma H22/BAN/B/03/010}
    May 29, 1893 as recovered.

    I also went through the records of patients seen at their request by the medical Committee at Banstead from 1891-1893 {E-Llma H22/BAN/B/03/062}, but Ostrog is not mentioned.

    I'm still trying to locate the letter written by Macnaghten to the Banstead Superintendant allegedly (according to Sugden) on May 7, 1891, and I might have an idea of where it is, but the records in question cannot become available before October 14, thus it will be necessary that someone else consults them when they become available, as I won't be in London anymore by that date. Unfortunately Sugden has put a footnote on the wrong place (pertaining to p. XVII/p. 479 in his book on JTR), so we might even need to consult him himself pertaining to the Macnaghten letter, to get the correct old reference number of the microfilm in question. The microfilm Sugden mentions in his book {p. 479} pertains NOT to the Macnaghten letter, but to the St. Giles Workshop records.
Working...
X