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

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

oops !

And people believe there was a police conspiracy of silence ?? NOTHING stays private in RipperWorld !

[Jason]

Dear Chris,
thank you so very much for your prompt response.
While I was at the LMA 2 weeks ago 2 different librarians told me they assumed that the letter in question, particularly if it was a sole document by itself, might have been disposed due to space shortage in the 1990s. What's absolutely clear is that the Macnaghten letter isn't anymore at the LMA – as yourself, Rob, and I have looked absolutely everywhere in the Banstead records (but in the lower personnel's wage lists) and it wasn't to be found anywhere. Our only remaining hope is you know who, so if it's OK I'll discuss this with Rob and perhaps attempt something.

oops !

[tji]

Maria

Probably beating a dead horse here!!! If Chris answered you by private message then the idea is he might want to keep things private. The best thing then would be for you to answer his private message via private message not post it over the boards.

[mariab]

Dear Chris,
thank you so very much for your prompt response.
While I was at the LMA 2 weeks ago 2 different librarians told me they assumed that the letter in question, particularly if it was a sole document by itself, might have been disposed due to space shortage in the 1990s. What's absolutely clear is that the Macnaghten letter isn't anymore at the LMA – as yourself, Rob, and I have looked absolutely everywhere in the Banstead records (but in the lower personnel's wage lists) and it wasn't to be found anywhere. Our only remaining hope is you know who, so if it's OK I'll discuss this with Rob and perhaps attempt something.

[tji]

Perhaps he wouldn't either Maria - there is nothing like putting someone on the spot!!! Have you thought to ask him privately or even do something for yourself?!

Tracy

[mariab]

last 2 Banstead boxes contain NO Macnaghten letter

Pertaining to the books/boxes with the reference nr. H22/BAN/A/01/001 and H22/BAN/A/01/001A at the LMA (resolutions of Banstead Hospital Committee) which until now were unfit to consult and were NOT consulted by Chris Phillips in 2008: I've just received an email from the conservator at the LMA, who has just checked the above volumes, and they appear to contain only resolutions from the committee (i.e., resolutions that the cook be paid 2 shillings more, etc.), and therefore they do not contain any correspondence.
Thus it's safe to say that the Macnaghten letter to the Banstead superintendent is NOT anymore available at the LMA. The librarians told me that it's very possible that the letter in question has been discarded years ago due to shortage of space.

Would anybody be interested in contacting Philip Sugden, in case he has any old notes on the case? Perhaps Chris Phillips would be interested in attempting this?

[mariab]

Thank you so much for the PM, Chris. I'm checking through the stuff right now, esp. the City petty sessions.

[Chris]

Chris, would you allow me to PM you...

Yes, no need to ask.

[mariab]

Actually, Sugden does say correctly that he was admitted to the asylum on 7 May [p. xviii]. He gives the date 4 May for his examination by Dr Sheard at the workhouse.

The Banstead records mention that Ostrog was sent over by authority of “G. {T? F?} Greville“ on May 4 1891, while there is no date for his examination having taken place by Dr. Shead, but I assume that the most plausible date to be understood for his examination is also May 4.
The daily admissions and discharges book {H22/BAN/B/01/012} DOESN'T feature ANY new admissions on May 4, but one new admission on May 6th (if I'm not mistaken, I haven't taken notes for May 6) and one admission on May 7. The descriptions book {H22/BAN/A/06/002} features Ostrog's admission date as May 7 1891.
What interests me much more than the exact day of his admission is, obviously, the Macnaghten letter.
I'm just back from the LMA and, out of pure curiosity, had a look into Rob's case files {H22/BAN/B/11/001}. Despite the book spotting “males“ on the cover, it consists entirely of files for female Banstead patients.

Chris, would you allow me to PM you pertaining to the books/boxes with the reference nr. H22/BAN/A/01/001 and H22/BAN/A/01/001A about which I'm still not clear if you or anyone else have/has looked into them already in 2008? Right now they are considered “unfit for consultation“, but I've ordered them for around October 14, and the librarians promised that at the worst case they will look inside themselves for any letters to Banstead from SY.

Plus I have another question pertaining to the London Westminster Archives and for a possibility I might have found for researching financial records for the London Westminster Bank – about which both I also need to consult Debs, and will do so in an email, if it's OK.

[Chris]

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}

Actually, Sugden does say correctly that he was admitted to the asylum on 7 May [p. xviii]. He gives the date 4 May for his examination by Dr Sheard at the workhouse.

[Rob Clack]

Quote mariab:
the microfilm reference today is X113/104

Absolutely NOT, you told me to go locate microfilm X/20/65 as mentioned my Sugden. But never mind.

I think you will find that I told you the reference X/20/65 applied to St Giles Workhouse and would have a different reference number now. It's clear enough in Sugden's book what it applies to. I didn't tell you you should look for it as since it was from the St Giles Workhouse it wouldn't contain Macnaghten's letter.

Rob

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Maria. Thanks for posting this.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

No problem, Debs, and thank you again so much for the reference.
I'm not trying to “correct“ anybody, I just happen to be here and was curious to check some things. In my perception, we're all in this together, and every small new find, however insignificant, advances the case.

[Debra A]

By the by, I'm about to email Debra Arif and ask her for the data pertaining to Le Grand's Malborough Courts/Guidhall convictions to look them up in the LMA, so if anyone has already researched those at the LMA it would be nice if they came forward. I don't mind the trouble of re-starting from scratch, but I really wish I hadn't put “new evidence“ on the title of this thread! (At least the pics would be new, if Rob posts them, as far as I know...)

Maria, as I said in my email this morning, but thought it wise to clarify publicly. The reference number I gave you ages ago for the Malborough Street Police Court, from the LMA, was to illustrate that there doesn't appear to be any other records for the correct dates covering the 1887 Tyrell, Le Grand, Pasquier case, just the run I referenced.
The ref. I gave you was the only one I could find in the catalogue relating to Malborough Street, and the start date was 1896.
Perhaps I just missed an earlier reference in the catalogue, if so, someone else may be able to find one in the catalogue for you.

[mariab]

I'm just trying to find solutions here.

Very helpful, thanx.