What 5 Questions Would You Like Answered?

[RivkahChaya]

"You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy, and, by parity of reasoning, you would not get much disease in the left. The liver was healthy and gave no indications that the woman drank." Echo 19th Oct. 1888

Expect the more experienced among you already know this but it is interesting.

Hmm. Well, the "ginny kidney" description we have from one doctor was a mistake at any rate, on the etiology of Bright's disease-- a lot of people thought excessive consumption of alcohol could cause it, when it, in fact, did not, although, as a diuretic, I suppose if you had a chronic case of it, alcohol might set of an acute attack, that I don't know. However, one common cause of acquired kidney disease (as opposed to something with a genetic cause, but sometimes a late onset, like polycystic kidney disease), was a strep infection.

If Eddowes had strep throat, or scarlet fever (which is strep throat with an allergic reaction and thus a rash), and recovered, she could have been left with kidney damage. It was a pretty common cause of death in childhood, and apparently left some children deaf or blind. It does cause a kidney problem called glomerulonephritis, and can also cause juvenile onset rheumatoid arthritis, and damage heart valves. We don't think of strep throat as being a terrible disease anymore, because it's so easily treatable with antibiotics.

Adults do get it as well. Eddowes had children, and the time adults are most likely to get it is when they have small children in close quarters.

So, now there's apparently one doctor saying she had kidney disease, and the other saying no. I have no idea whether strep can damage one kidney and not the other. I suppose it's possible, since even ingested toxins sometimes damage one kidney more than the other, but I am not a doctor. Maybe the surgeon over on the other thread can weigh in. If she had nephritis in one kidney and not the other, or acute nephritis in one kidney and not the other, at any rate, that might explain why don't have a record of her complaining of symptoms or seeking treatment.

What? Common sense? haha There are a few in here who would benefit from a good sized injection of that.

Oh, sorry Kate Eddowes cast iron liver

Actually, I think "cirrhosis" is technically a hardening of the liver because it develops a lot of scar tissue, so "cast iron" liver, maybe not so ideal. "Bionic" liver, maybe.

[Observer]

Yes, I can just see it "Free Eddowes liver with every ten pints! (Only one per household)"

C4

You'd only need one. Hold on. Perhaps the killer had heard of her legendary liver, and decided he wanted it! Of course he missed and got the kidney instead. Can't have had much knowledge of anatomy though.

Enough of the gallows humour though! haha

[Wickerman]

There are more than you might suppose:

those who don't have anywhere better to go; those who are cold and hungry; those who are in fear of something or someone. For such people a police station is a place of safety.

And, by way of example:

PRISON PREFERRED TO THE WORKHOUSE.

"I am very glad you have come, constable. I broke the window." This is how Arthur Simmonds, 21, a labourer, addressed Police-constable Hill, on the night of Aug. 29. Simmonds was standing with other persons, outside the shop of Mr. Otto Groose, a stay-maker of 187, High-street, Islington. The constable noticed that a pane of glass, valued at £15, had been broken. The constable asked Simmonds why he had done it. He replied, "I am hard up, and would rather go to prison than to the workhouse." At the Middlesex Sessions, to-day, however, he said the window was broken before he arrived, and a man gave him a penny to say that he had broken it. He was found guilty, and Warder Jones, who said the prisoner went about dressed in artillery uniform playing a cornet, proved thirteen previous convictions. He was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, with hard labour."
Echo, 6 Sept. 1888.

The question being, what crime was he found guilty of?

[curious4]

Free liver

The distillers, and brewers would applaud this move!

Yes, I can just see it "Free Eddowes liver with every ten pints! (Only one per household)"

C4

[Observer]

What? Common sense? haha There are a few in here who would benefit from a good sized injection of that.

Oh, sorry Kate Eddowes cast iron liver



The distillers, and brewers would applaud this move!

[curious4]

Livers

Hi Curious



Neither can the majority of us.




Must of been made of rhino hide!

Regards

Observer

Hello Observer,

Shame they couldn't clone it!

Cheers,
C4

[Observer]

Hi Curious

Hello Lynn,

Sorry, I haven't been able to find anything strange about Kelly which can't be explained by differences/mistakes in reporting and the natural confusion of a man in shock.

Neither can the majority of us.

The liver was healthy and gave no indications that the woman drank." Echo 19th Oct. 1888

Must of been made of rhino hide!

Regards

Observer

[curious4]

Casual ward and John Kelly

Hello Lynn,

Sorry, I haven't been able to find anything strange about Kelly which can't be explained by differences/mistakes in reporting and the natural confusion of a man in shock.I believe that at the time "afternoon" could stretch to 8 p.m.? Couldn't find much on this but I did find something on american farm workers working "eight hours in the forenoon and eight hours in the afternoon".

Hello Simon,

If you mean that Kate was home earlier than would be expected from the Casual ward, I can only refer you to the piece I posted a day or so ago (sorry it was so long, if I had just given the link, you would have had to look long and hard for it). If something of this kind had happened, it would explain why Kelly was angry with the Casual ward (can't put my finger on where I read this, but it is there).

Hello all,

I did come across this from Dr Sedgewick Saunders, who I believe examined the stomach of Kate Eddowes for narcotic substances, giving quite a different account of the state of Kate's kidneys."You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddowes was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy, and, by parity of reasoning, you would not get much disease in the left. The liver was healthy and gave no indications that the woman drank." Echo 19th Oct. 1888

Expect the more experienced among you already know this but it is interesting.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth C4

[Bridewell]

I doubt any killer would arrange to meet and just hang around until the police decide to let her go.

Would that not rather depend on the reason for the meeting having been arranged in the first place?

[Bridewell]

There aren't many people who gladly sit around in police cells.

There are more than you might suppose:

those who don't have anywhere better to go; those who are cold and hungry; those who are in fear of something or someone. For such people a police station is a place of safety.

[DVV]

Yes, but on that: it isn't necessary to quote someone's entire five paragraph-two screen post.

True. Some tend to make each of their posts a conference.
They're on my boring list.

[RivkahChaya]

And use the quote functions when addressing the message of another poster. Its easier for others to follow and understand the context of the discussion itself. Whatever you write should be for the benefit of the reader and not for oneself.

Yes, but on that: it isn't necessary to quote someone's entire five paragraph-two screen post. If you really want to address every point, it's better to at least break into the post and address each point. Otherwise, snip the post to the key point you are addressing. People can always click on the arrow if they want to go back and review the entire post.

[Hunter]

I had a recent conversation (on the boards) with the currently departed Phil H regarding what made Ripperologist look like 'fringe lunatics'. My contention was (and is) that it's the protracted, obsessive, introverted posting wars that really encourage that view - far more than the odd thread started by a poster who purports to believe that Vincnt Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper (e.g.)

Indeed.

Sometimes folks should try to be more informative and concise as well as mannered. It does no good when people start passing over your posts because they are long and redundant. Strive to put in the best words that you can, instead of just being determined to get in the last.

And use the quote functions when addressing the message of another poster. Its easier for others to follow and understand the context of the discussion itself. Whatever you write should be for the benefit of the reader and not for oneself.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

all right. I can agree to some extent.

However, it's a bit rich to brand what you call the "Canon Cultists" as stubborn and agressive, while the others would be the Open-Minded Squad.

To begin with, it appears that a great deal of the so-called "Canon-Cultists" tends to add one or several victims to the C5, which is hardly an evidence of stubborness.

I, like most, have no problem to discuss any theory or point of view, as long as it doesn't involve Van Gogh or Brueghel the Elder.
What I dislike, I admit, is to see alternative theories presented as the doxa, which they are not yet.

And this, imo, has clearly become the tendency on boards. I've seen newbyes endorsing theories that are obviously extreme, whithout realizing they were. Some even seemed to take for granted, for example, that Schwartz was a liar involved in a cover-up : as a result, Mrs Mortimer has been given an importance that she certainly doesn't deserve. This is not what I would call an improvement.

Similarly, using the expression "serial killer rot" helps little. It's well and good to suggest JtR never existed, but to radically discard the possibility that there was a serial killer in Whitechapel in 1888 is far too much.

Cheers

[Sally]

There is a regrettable tendency lately by some of the more abusive Canon Cultists to insult the poster who disagrees with that perspective, not that I personally find David to be that way or was posting to take one side or the other. Its just that youre little misunderstanding highlights some rather obnoxious behavior and commentary from individuals who believe their non proven-case is better than any other non-proven case.

I would really rather discuss and debate myself, heated or casual, and I wouldnt like this site to have the negative aggressive edge that it gets from these folks. I know. Ive been one on occasion.

No-one knows diddly really, we are all just poking around to see if anything is under a rock. So perhaps a Code, like an Honor Code....not needed to be enforced or monitored by the busy and generous staff here, but by us all, as individuals. United in the belief that the dialogue should be either informative, witty or constructive...or a combination of them all....but not mean spirited. Its tiresome and juvenile. And it only serves to expose the fact that the individual offering the snide remarks believes in something which 125 years of investigation and far smarter people couldnt prove...that one man killed 5.

All the best Lynn

Mike - great post. I think the great majority here would rather discuss and debate. And you're right - nobody knows diddly really; which makes some of the arguments we see on the site look pretty farcical from an outside perspective.

I had a recent conversation (on the boards) with the currently departed Phil H regarding what made Ripperologist look like 'fringe lunatics'. My contention was (and is) that it's the protracted, obsessive, introverted posting wars that really encourage that view - far more than the odd thread started by a poster who purports to believe that Vincnt Van Gogh was Jack the Ripper (e.g.)