Courtesy of Maria, here's a translation of Ostrog's 1888 arrest of a microscope in France.
14 Nov. 1888 [the date is inscribed much earlier, with the first case gone before the magistrates that day].
For the prosecutor, representing the French Republic.
Lublinski Stanislas, alias Grand Guidon, 53 years of age, claiming to be a doctor of medicine, was born on 5 March 1835 in Warsaw (Poland) by... and ... [this obviously refers to the names of the parents, but has been left blank]. No indication of home address.
Theft, infringement of an order of expulsion.
After deliberations following French law, the tribunal/the court, after some confusion and delays, established that in 1888 in Paris the defendant Lublinski fraudulently took away a microscope property of Mr. Legry, which constitutes an actual offense punished by articles [unreadable: 279? 379?] of the penal code. Given that it's also established that Lublinski, alien, was ex-pulsed from France by a ministerial order on June 9, 1886 which was lawfully communicated to the defendant, but he re-entered France and was arrested in Paris on July 21, 1888, according to article 8 of the law issued on December 3, 1849. Since the persecutor has already condemned the defendant to a sentence longer than one year of imprisonment, and that the defendant calls himself a forensic pathologist, according to article 8 of the penal code, in an application of articles 401, 8, and [18? 58?] which were read by the president, in addition to the other cases of theft and other attempted offences not being considered in the present session, it's been decided that the offence be punished by imprisonment of at least one year and at most two years, and by a penal fee assessed between at least sixteen francs and at most five hundred francs.
Any alien ignoring extraction and acting against the aforementioned article and article 272 of the penal code by exiting France and returning without the government's permission will be judged by us in this court and will be sentenced to imprisonment from one to six months. After serving his sentence, he will be brought to the border. Defendants having been sentenced to longer that one year of imprisonment due to additional offences will be condemned according to law for their first offence, which can lead to a double sentence added to their first offence and to a surveillance by the government for a duration between one year at least and ten years at most, according to article 361 of the code for criminal instruction, which states that in case of multiple offences, a punishment will be applied solely for the most serious offence. See also article from the same code, in case an attenuated punishment was applied, according to circumstances.
Lublinski is convicted to 2 years of imprisonment and to the penal fee of 448 francs and 85 cents, plus 3 francs for shipping costs. Minimal duration of the corporal sentence will fit the recruitment of the costs.
[4 signatures, difficult to read]
Thank you so very much for kindly cleaning up the images and for posting this, Rob.
Lynn, NO hints of violence whatsoever. I still suspect that Ostrog was a mixup with Le Grand. Notice Ostrog's con name Grand Guidon in the Paris convinction document, as well as Dr. Grant in other instances. I'm trying to locate a letter Macnagthen wrote in May 1891 to the medical facility Ostrog was incarcerated. I'm interested in the exact contents of that letter (not revealed by Sugden).
Yes, there's evidence that the British police were looking for a doctor for the Ripper murders. The problem is that Ostrog was arrested in Paris in July 1888 and was under lock and key during the entire “autumn of terror“.
What I'm interested in finding is the letter Macnaghten wrote in May 1891 to the superintendent at Banstead Hospital, where Ostrog was incarcerated. (This letter is partly quoted by Sugden on p. XVIII of his book.) Sugden says the records from Banstead Hospital are held by GLRO, which I'm not sure what it is, neither have I ever conducted research in hospital records. I was thinking of PMing Robert Linford about this, but I'm sure you can help too.
Though it is not the letter you are seeking, here is an excerpt from the footnotes section of Paul Begg's excellent 'Jack the Ripper --The Facts' (2006) p.487:
‘In 1891 Melville Macnaghten wrote to Banstead requesting that the Convict Supervision Office be informed if Ostrog was released. There is no suggestion that Banstead were informed that Ostrog was potentially dangerous, possibly a multiple murderer and perhaps Jacks the Ripper.’
I'll bet they weren't.
Plus Ostrog becomes habitually cruel to women, is definitely insane, and carries surgical knives, in the version of the Mac Report seen by the police chief's literary pals -- but what is the Russian thief doing there at all when he had an iron clad alibi?
In his own 1914 memoirs, Macnaghten does not even bother to mention [the un-named] Ostrog in order to debunk him as a 'suspect'. Thus this primary source does arguably concur with secondary sources: Ostrog as 'Jack' is a complete non-starter.