The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[curious4]

Finally, Dave O, thankyou very much.

If ever proof was needed that the writer was in the habit of joining words together this demonstrates the fact beyond any reasonable doubt!

Please, anyone who thinks to the contrary, just count just how many times two separate words are strung together, beginning with:
- toldme (told me)
- thather (that her)
- JohnKelly (John Kelly)
- foremanof (foreman of)
- livedat (lived at).
and on, and on...

Ladies & Gentlemen, I rest my case as proven.

Regards, Jon S.

Sorry Wickerman but I think this argument can only apply to writing with a keyboard (typewriter or computer). Donīt think one is very likely to do this when writing by hand.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Far from proven for me, Jon. Sorry.

What is proven Debs, is that the writer strung separate words together.
Prior to Dave's post, we collectively, did not know this.

Whether "Johnto-" meant "John too", or "Johnjo", or any other combination will remain uncertain. Given that the "to-" shows a clear tapering off with a tail suggests another letter was intended after the "o", because the writer was clearly not intending to join "to-" to the next word as he was at the edge of the page.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

I read the text, as posted as:

"deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly was a foreman of some iron works at lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon that she had a brother named Henory serving in 2nd Battn Scots Guards and known among his comrades as Johnto and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland. She also told".

I've just checked and the Irish equivalent of Henry is apparently "Annraoi" or "Anrai". I'm just wondering if the name Henry, which looks to be spelt "Henory" or "Henroy" (there's an extra stroke which doesn't fit with "Henry") may be an attempt by the statement taker to spell, phonetically, Barnett's pronunciation of "Annraoi"?

I showed the handwritten "Johnto" word to my wife (who had no prior knowledge of the matter) and she guessed at "Johuto". (Not sure where that takes us, but it was her interpretation with no foreknowledge).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

The 's' in 'some' and in 'she' differs from that in 'serving'. This is the kind of way I write.

[Debra A]

What is proven Debs, is that the writer strung separate words together.
Prior to Dave's post, we collectively, did not know this.

Whether "Johnto-" meant "John too", or "Johnjo", or any other combination will remain uncertain. Given that the "to-" shows a clear tapering off with a tail suggests another letter was intended after the "o", because the writer was clearly not intending to join "to-" to the next word as he was at the edge of the page.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon, it seems a weak argument in handwriting that clearly has superfluous tails and flourishes on random letters. It clearly shows that separate words were strung together, yes, with long strokes of the pen, maintaining their appearance as separate words. Johnto is clearly meant to be one word.
It also looks like Bridewell's wife and Curious remain unconvinced too, if I'm not mistaken?

I'm interested in exactly who may have written it now though.

[Dave O]

Hi Debra,

posted this on another thread during discussion of whether Barnett identified Mary by her "ear and eyes" or "hair and eyes", but it has some relevance here I think; Stewart showed that it clearly says 'ear' in Barnett's statement and posts another source which says specifically it was the 'peculiar shape of the ear'. Is this part of the same statement you posted, Dave?

No, it's the same file, but Barnett's statement about identifying Kelly's ear comes from the depositions taken at the inquest, which look to me to be in the handwriting of the deputy coroner, who was also a solicitor.

A quick word about inquest depositions: the thing about them is that procedure would have had them reading the deposition back to each witness for accuracy, but the caveat is that the depositions only contain information deemed to be relevant. So they may or may not reflect the entirety of what a person said.

Also, to be fair, they're not above making mistakes. I believe it was Gareth who had identified an error in Sarah Lewis' deposition over where her address was ("Powell" for "Pearl"). And the inquisition for Kelly also has one ("1" Millers Court instead of "13" for the place of death).

So I wouldn't want to claim that they're operating under a fool-proof system or anything like that, and newspaper accounts certainly have their place as helpful supplements to inquest records. When they agree, that's as golden as it gets in my limited experience, which is why I like that Tom Robinson quote that Stewart put up.

Hope that helps but I've probably only clouded the waters, eh?

Dave

[Dave O]

Hi again, Debra

I'm interested in exactly who may have written it now though.

Here's the end of the police statements, which look to me to be in all the same hand with the exception of Elizabeth Prater's. The inclusion of 'Walter' above 'Inspector Beck' is in Macdonald's hand.

Dave

[Bridewell]

Henory

Hi All,

I read the text, as posted as:

"deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly was a foreman of some iron works at lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon that she had a brother named Henory serving in 2nd Battn Scots Guards and known among his comrades as Johnto and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland. She also told".

I've just checked and the Irish equivalent of Henry is apparently "Annraoi" or "Anrai". I'm just wondering if the name Henry, which looks to be spelt "Henory" or "Henroy" (there's an extra stroke which doesn't fit with "Henry") may be an attempt by the statement taker to spell, phonetically, Barnett's pronunciation of "Annraoi"?

I showed the handwritten "Johnto" word to my wife (who had no prior knowledge of the matter) and she guessed at "Johuto". (Not sure where that takes us, but it was her interpretation with no foreknowledge).

Regards, Bridewell.

Apologies for quoting my own post, but I've just searched for "Henory" as a name and found the following which alludes, admittedly, to a surname:

Henory spelling variations

In times when literacy was uncommon, names such as Henory were transcribed based on how they sounded when people's names were written in official records. This could have led to misspellings of Henory. Understanding misspellings and alternate spellings of the Henory last name are important to understanding the possible origins of the name. Last names like Henory transform in their spelling as they travel across communities, family lines, and languages across time.

I'll quit with the whole Henory thing now.

Regards, Bridewell

[Archaic]

Could the extra flourishes apparent in the writing sample provided by Dave O be merely the result of someone trying to write quickly and smoothly in an effort to keep up with the dictation of the witness?

I sometimes do that myself when I try to write too quickly and "automatically". My head sort of gets ahead of my hand and my hand writes furiously trying to keep up and not miss anything. When I go back and read it over I often find that I've added an extra loop, or an extra letter, or strung two words together. Penmanship isn't everybody's strong suit.

Or would the officer recording the deposition make a 'rough draft' during the oral dictation, then read it over afterward and make a neater final copy if he found penmanship errors?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

posted this on another thread during discussion of whether Barnett identified Mary by her "ear and eyes" or "hair and eyes", but it has some relevance here I think; Stewart showed that it clearly says 'ear' in Barnett's statement and posts another source which says specifically it was the 'peculiar shape of the ear'. Is this part of the same statement you posted, Dave?

No, it's the same file, but Barnett's statement about identifying Kelly's ear comes from the depositions taken at the inquest, which look to me to be in the handwriting of the deputy coroner, who was also a solicitor.

A quick word about inquest depositions: the thing about them is that procedure would have had them reading the deposition back to each witness for accuracy, but the caveat is that the depositions only contain information deemed to be relevant. So they may or may not reflect the entirety of what a person said.

Also, to be fair, they're not above making mistakes. I believe it was Gareth who had identified an error in Sarah Lewis' deposition over where her address was ("Powell" for "Pearl"). And the inquisition for Kelly also has one ("1" Millers Court instead of "13" for the place of death).

So I wouldn't want to claim that they're operating under a fool-proof system or anything like that, and newspaper accounts certainly have their place as helpful supplements to inquest records. When they agree, that's as golden as it gets in my limited experience, which is why I like that Tom Robinson quote that Stewart put up.

Hope that helps but I've probably only clouded the waters, eh?

Dave

No, that helps a lot Dave, thanks. I asked previously about how inquest testimony was recorded and if there could have been a mistake in taking it down but nobody answered ( I tend to be 'Billy no mates' and talk to myself a lot on casebook lately!) If it was read back then there were less likely to be mistakes I suppose.
Yes, that someone corroborated the 'ear' version by elaborating that it was said they were 'a peculiar shape' seems to back up what was recorded,even if he did get Barnett's name wrong. Tom Robinson would have to completely fabricated the 'peculiar shape' bit wouldn't he? And that would be a very odd thing to do.

Thanks for the handwriting sample too. I'm curious about the statement signed by Thick that I posted showing the same style of joining two separate words together by a single stroke. Maybe it was quite common in those days.

[Dave O]

Hi Debra,

Yes, it's odd. What you posted from Thick sure does look similar. But then you have the reference to 'myself' above Abberline's signature. I don't have the experience with their handwriting or police procedure to know the right of it, whether Abberline sat down and wrote this out himself or had Thick or someone else to do it, and then he just signed it. I guess a second person was involved writing down Prater's police statement, I don't know why it's like that.

Anyway, I'll duck out. Interested in what turns up about this photograph and how the debate on all this other stuff turns out.

Best,
Daveto/Davejo/Dave too/Dave to

[Debra A]

Thanks, Dave.
It might simply be that the convict inquiry statements my sample comes from were not written by the person that signed them as looking again-before the signature it says-Officer who carried out inquiry.
It looks like Abberline maybe wrote the one I posted and Thick signed it as the officer doing the inquiry. That seems the simple answer.

[Bridewell]

Clarification

Thanks, Dave.
It might simply be that the convict inquiry statements my sample comes from were not written by the person that signed them as looking again-before the signature it says-Officer who carried out inquiry.
It looks like Abberline maybe wrote the one I posted and Thick signed it as the officer doing the inquiry. That seems the simple answer.

Hi Debra,

I don't know for certain if the practise in the late 19th century was the same as in the late 20th, but the signatures at the bottom of a non-police witness statement would ordinarily be that of the person whose statement it was and that of the police officer who took it down. A police officer would be expected to record his (or her) own statement, so you would either have the same signature twice or, more usually in practise, the officer's signature and "Self-recorded" in lieu of a second signature. It would be unusual, in my experience, for one police officer to write a statement and another to sign it,

(Apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning here).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Debra A]

Thanks Bridewell. I've sent you a PM.

[Semper_Eadem]

Thanks for the handwriting sample too. I'm curious about the statement signed by Thick that I posted showing the same style of joining two separate words together by a single stroke. Maybe it was quite common in those days.

I wonder if that might not be case Deb given the ink pens they were using which was basically a bottle and stick of wood with a piece of metal on the end to hold the ink. I think they had to write fast before their ink dried up and they had to re dip their pen in the ink bottle to continue writing so I could see a writer accidental writing two words as one. Unless they took their witness depositions in with pencils and not pens?

Geo~