The Grisly

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

" between 35 and 60' would mean 36 to 59"

Brilliant, Tom, between me and you Didn´t think of that one, I have to say...!

" I win."

But of course!


The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Actually, 'between 18 and 35' would mean 19 to 34, and 'between 35 and 60' would mean 36 to 59...so, 35 is neither young nor middle-aged, and therefore would be 'relatively young'. Game point. I win. Next!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Seriously, it's stupid for an academic to use 'between' and not 'from'. Had it been written properly, it would have been 'from 18 to 35' and 'from 36 to 60'. I used to do market research.

[Lechmere]

Whitechapel 1888 - 30+ yes
Today - 45+ yes
Ripperologists - more like 20

[Lechmere]

Lynn
What did Tomkins let slip?

[Fisherman]

Greg Baron:

"Gentlemen"

Agreed!

"You’re trying to argue rationally about a murky and subjective category; i.e., middle-age."

Agreed!

"My personal definition would be one that has seen his or her better days but is not yet old.

Based on that I’d offer the following suppositions:

Middle Age

Whitechapel 1888 – 30+"

Agreed!

"Today – 45+"

Sorry - I´d move that down to 35, perhaps even 30. But since I like the rest of your post so much, I´m willing to accept your bid just the same.

"Ripperologists – 60+"

...making me a young lad! Agreed, of course!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"My answer? She had been to Harrison and Barber's yard before ..."

That´s as good an answer as we are gonna get - the prostitutes depended on knowledge of the localities to be able to steer clear of the PC.s on their beats. They would have had their regular haunts.

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

76.4/2 = 38.2

"Research shows that these generally accepted guidelines are not far off base. When respondents have the opportunity to define age categories themselves, their perceptions are largely in agreement with researcher´s judgements. Zepelin, Sills and Heath (1986), for example, found that those between ages of 18 and 35 were considered young, those between 35 and 60 were considered middle-aged, and those between 60 and 80 were considered old."

Gentlemen,

You’re trying to argue rationally about a murky and subjective category; i.e., middle-age.

My personal definition would be one that has seen his or her better days but is not yet old.

Based on that I’d offer the following suppositions:

Middle Age

Whitechapel 1888 – 30+
Today – 45+
Ripperologists – 60+


Greg

[Lechmere]

Not Kate?
Was she dragged into Mitre Square by her hair (or apron) while walking down the road minding her own business? And did she fail to mutter the faintest cry?
Or had she gone there to sleep and was attacked while slumbering?
And how did she get the money to get blind drunk ealier in the day?

[lynn cates]

last shot

Hello (again) Simon.

"But if Nichols was a prostitute desperate for fourpence, do you not think she'd have gravitated to the most likely source of revenue?"

Is it possible she had and was unsuccessful? That would make Tompkins, et al, her last shot (um, no pun intended).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

trysting

Hello Simon. Good question.

My answer? She had been to Harrison and Barber's yard before (as Tompkins let slip). That was her "default" option.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Simon
I have read before about the tramway construction on Commercial Street.
Has anyone ever found a report on it – detailing the progress? ‘On 10th October the section of Commercial Street between Dorset Street and Brushfield Street is being dug up and a diversion is in place’ That sort of thing.
I rather doubt that the whole road was dug up at the same time with a thousand navvies toiling day and night. I would expect sections to be done at a time. Who’s to say that on the night of 30th and 31st August there were just a dozen navvies hard at it laying ten yards of track down the Bishopsgate end?
I don’t recall reading about the roadworks in any of the accounts of any of the murders, but then I don’t reckon I’ve read every single newspaper article looking for such references. In the absence of any references (if there is an absence) then I suspect that the roadworks were not drastic, disruptive or significant.
Anyway, as has been said, why would a prostitute (any of the victims not just Polly) be attracted to a gang of roadworkers?

[Hunter]

Hunter/Cris, pertaining to your post #209, might I inquire where you've got Dr. Phillips' post-mortem report on Alice McKenzie? (Which is not transcribed in The Ultimate.) Do you have the original source? There are some things I'd very much like to ask you about further coroners reports, but it has time.

Hi Maria,
Mr. Phillips' report is can be sourced at the National Archives at Kew: MEPO 3/140, ff. 263-71.

You might want to peruse Evans & Skinner's 'The Ultimate Sourcebook' a little more carefully as this report is reprinted there starting on page 505 in the Murder of Alice McKenzie chapter. It is a very detailed report and is textbook on how this very meticulous surgeon performed all of the autopsies coming under his authorization; which was done by the coroner's office. I believe he was paid 2 guineas for the procedure as warranted by the Coroner's Act of 1887.

Yes, here is the relevant section:

S. 22(2). a summons of the coroner under this Act shall be entitled to received such renumeration as follows; that is to say,
(a.) For attending to give evidence at any inquest whereat no post-mortem examination has been made by such practitioner, one guinea; and
(b.) For making a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, with or without an analysis of the contents of the stomach or intestines, and for attending to give evidence thereon, two guineas...

It goes on to cite certain conditions.

[lynn cates]

This bloke won't 'aggle.

Hello Lechmere. As Eric Idle once said, "Oh dear, this bloke won't 'aggle. You're supposed to say, 'Ten for this? You must be mad!'"

But, almost anyone besides Kate. Kate was no virgin and had been around a bit, I suppose. But not fresh out of a gaol cell.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You're impossible to debate with because you're constantly moving the goalposts. "

I am moving no goalposts at all, Tom, whereas the goalposts HAVE moved on the age issue over the years. Read this:

From the thesis "Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons":

"Research shows that these generally accepted guidelines are not far off base. When respondents have the opportunity to define age categories themselves, their perceptions are largely in agreement with researcher´s judgements. Zepelin, Sills and Heath (1986), for example, found that those between ages of 18 and 35 were considered young, those between 35 and 60 were considered middle-aged, and those between 60 and 80 were considered old."

So, Tom, we have here a quotation of a scientific measuring of how people judged ages in 1986, more or less exactly a hundred years AFTER the Ripper murders. Right? And what can we learn? Exactly: we can learn that in 1986, you were considered middle-aged by the man and woman in the street when you turned 35!

Now, please note that there would have been a different take on this a century earlier: Patrick Mulshaw, for example ("watchman, old man", you know) would still have been middle-aged in 1986. In 1888, he - just like the 54-year old Packer - were already old men.

"Watch it, buddy, I'm 38! I get called young man all the time by old people in their 50s and 60s."

I can call you a child, if you´d like me to, Tom But the truth of the matter is that we are both middle-aged, you and I!

"Human nature, Fish. You and Bridewell aren't getting it."

I´d say that the thesis above LISTS what "human nature" had to say about being middle-aged in 1986 ... It´s also, however, "human nature" not to give in to facts at times, so we are seeing a lot of human nature here, methinks ...

Case closed, Tom, unless you can produce statistical evidence telling us that the Victorians thought the thirties young age.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. You're impossible to debate with because you're constantly moving the goalposts.

Wise move, Tom! Please also observe that Lechmere was rather typical for the average East-ender. At 38 years of age, he had a large swarm of kids, had travelled the East End streets with his horse and cart for more than twenty years, and was a very seasoned carman. Do you propose to tell me that he would have passed for a young man, being in his thirties? Me oh my ...!

Watch it, buddy, I'm 38! I get called young man all the time by old people in their 50s and 60s. However, a 15 year old asked me two years ago if I had been a hippie in the 70's! To kids I'd be middle-aged, but to someone the age of William Marshall, I'd be a 'young man' or 'relatively young man'. If he called me middle-aged, he'd be calling himself old. Human nature, Fish. You and Bridewell aren't getting it.

There is very, very, very little difference in life expectancy from 1888 to now, if you made it past 5 years old. What's true now is true then in this respect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott