Right. So I found the source you are using and while it is interesting, there are some problems with using it for your purposes.
First off- the women are identified by their First names and last initial only. How many women who answered to Catherine C. could there have been in London at that time? Hundreds? Thousands? The age is interesting but wrong for our Kate. By December of 1867, Catherine Conway was already 25 by a wide margin not 24 as reported (birthday in April). Also, we don't know if Catherine was even IN London at this point as she and her not-husband traveled extensively selling their wares.
Mary Ann N. is likewise interesting but, again, without a specific last name we cannot be sure especially as her age is also close but incorrect as she would have been 22 by December of 1867 not 21 as reported. Also, records seem to indicate that in 1867 she and her husband were living with her father at 131 Trafalgar Street which is rather far south of the river. If she were ill while living at that location she would more likely have gone to Guy's than all the way north to London Hospital.
There is no other descriptive information given, both of 'our' women had children at this point but no reference is made to recently giving birth for either of them. No mention is made of them being married or not. We simply don't have enough identifying information to use to say for sure if these women are the Catherine and Mary Ann we are looking for.
"Sutton had a problem with maths,hence everyone has his birth year wrong."
How do you know that he had a problem with math? How do you know that everyone's birth year was wrong if we don't actually know who any of these people are? Physicians are generally pretty good at math because if they aren't, it makes their jobs a lot harder.
Hang on, if you read the introduction to the article you will see that those who were admitted to the London Hospital (as both Catherine C. and Mary Ann N. were) actually came under the care of Drs. Davies, Clarke, and Ramskill and were afterwards transferred to the care of Dr. Sutton. Not Gull. (See page 44 of the article for confirmation of these details).
Even IF these women were our Kate and Polly, they never met Dr. Gull and were never cared for by him (in any capacity because you know he had nurses who were doing the actual hands on part of the job, right?).
While finding those names in a paper co-written by Gull is interesting, there's still no proof Gull ever had any contact with them much less that they are in fact the women we are interested in.
Thanks Pcdunn .
Found it curious that, after Nichols and Chapman's murders, when Eddowes returned from hopping,she headed for a refuge in Shoe Lane.
That's the area Nichols grew up in. Unless there is another Shoe Lane.
Both Nichols and Eddowes split with their husbands in 1881.
Eddowes moved to 55 Flower and Dean Street.
Nichols moved in next door in 1888,just before her death.
It is my intention to move back on topic.
Edit. Nichols looked some years younger than her age.
Might be found in the 1881 census as an inpatient at a hospital in Great Ailie Street.
My name is Dave.
Last edited by DJA : 12-19-2016 at 04:40 PM.