The Grisly

[Lechmere]

As far as I am concerned the only relevance of the victims' prostitute status is were they soliciting when they were murdered. This would tell us something about the circumstances in which they met their death and how the perpetrator may have carried out the murders.
It really doesn't matter if the night on question was their first night on the game or whether they did it occasionally or every single day.
In my opinion it is without doubt that the first four of the c5 were soliciting immediately prior to their deaths. There can be more doubt about Kelly as she was indoors and a case could be made that someone effected an entry and killed her in her sleep - or something similar. In my opinion she almost certainly was also soliciting and met her demise in the same way essentially as the others.
If you want to write a biography of the victims then discovering how often they acted as a prostitute may be if interest, but that's about it.
It seems to me some of these 'prove it' arguments are along the same lines as 'prove titanic even existed' or prove 'man has landed on the moon'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Thank you for your mouse lessons in big red letters. Most generous and thoughtful.

Here's another "believed to be" for your collection.



An unquestioning belief in the cops has got us where we are today.

Nowhere.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Police Nulification

Not a bad day at all, Lynn. Police Nulification is the subject. NOT believing the police. A whole new way of looking at things.

The police wrote that the victims were prostitutes. Go to the link and see the original documents. But no, the police are not to be believed Using that criteria, your lad Jacob Isenschmidt is toast. Toast at the Prarie Dog Coffe Klatch.

They pop in. They pop out.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Hope your health is improving and everything finds you well.

We really don't know if any of the so-called 'canonicals' had sexually transmitted diseases at the time of their deaths. Unfortunately, all of the post-mortem reports have not survived. Those would have provided much more detail about the general physical condition of the victims than the medical testimonies given at the inquest; the testimonies largely concentrating on the physical evidence of the murders themselves. Of course, Gordon Brown did testify in his written statement that he saw no evidence of intercourse in the case of Catherine Eddowes.

Fortunately - although not a canonical - Mr. Phillips' post-mortem report on Alice McKenzie has survived and gives us a glimpse into the very detailed examinations that took place; information that would not be relayed at an inquest.
From Phillips' post-mortem report, July 22, 1889


'Genital signs.

There is no sign of coitus.
Syphilitic Condylomata of vagina and ulceration of mucus membrane under clitoris.'

Phillips went on to state that the victim had hemorrhoids.

Hello Cris,

thank you- am ok- not great- fair. Posting via an old ph.

Your post shows my point. Of the post mortems that survive, there is no indication of VD. (C5)
the question of prostiution really is dependant on three points.

Are these women prostiuting themselves out of habit?
Are these women prostituting themselves out of necessity?
Are these women doing the above on a regular basis), an irregular basis or an occasional basis?

As MJK was in a long relationship only 2 weeks before, would she THEN be descibed as a prostiute?
Eddowes was in this position, with John Kelly. Was she 'a prostitute'?
Ftc etc.
My own personal feeling is that the C5 were branded with title rather unfairlly.occasionall perhaps- but certainly not regularly imho.
Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

???

Hello Roy. I must confess I am baffled here. Yes, I spent a good deal of research time on this remark. It is very interesting; however, I don't see a good chain from the Anarchists/Socialists to any of the killings.

A better try is Rachkovski's Okhrana. But here, too, the PR campaign following the "Double Event" is tepid, at best.

Regarding my "buddies," I have no idea what you mean.

Having a bad day, perhaps? I know that feeling.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Original Police Report Documents

Simon, here is the link to the thread:

(Use your computer Mouse Click Here to go to that thread)

If that link doesn't work, the documents Stewart posted are on page 24, 25 & 26 of the thread - Suspects/Cutbush/Broadmoor Archives Finally Open.

Stewart posted the police reports up for your benefit. And you said

At the risk of upsetting Stewart, whom I greatly admire, may I say that the last thing I believe in the WM are the police reports.

Don't believe the police. Okay, then its Hasta La Vista BABY for Isenschmidt

Oh, and Lynn, you like to pop up with that thing Warren said "A Secret Society was Behind It All" Well, guess what, Lynn. Warren was a cop. He can't be believed. He's making up stuff.

So its Hasta La Vista BABY Secret Society

Lynn, it sounds like your buddies in the Prarie Dog Coffe Klatch have got you walking the plank there pardner.

Police Nulification. What else can we toss using this approach?

Roy

[mklhawley]

I believe 'life expectancy' includes infant and adolescent mortality, which led to the comment, "If you reach the age of 30, chances are that you will live to a ripe old age." Life expectancy increased upon the use of antibiotics, mostly because infant mortality declined.

When I look at census material from the early 1800's, I see a number of ages in their 80's and 90's.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

It's not an opinion, Bridewell. The average person on the street would not identify a 30 year old as middle-aged, and we ARE in fact discussing the testimony of average people who literally were on the street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Bunk

Hi Bridewell, yes, we all know that, and it's all bunk.

Life expectancy wasn't much different in 1888 then now for most people.

No responsible researcher could claim that Marshall's man was 30 years old.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

You're entitled to your opinion.

Regards, Bridewell

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bridewell, yes, we all know that, and it's all bunk. As pointed out, by these statistics, middle-age is presently 25. But if you were witness to a crime and asked to describe the age of the 25 year old assailant, you'd likely not say...'Well, he was a middle-aged man of 25', nor would you say 'He was a senior citizen of 40'. We're talking common vernacular, not obscure statistics.

Life expectancy wasn't much different in 1888 then now for most people. And the people witnessed by Marshall, et al were not casual laborers and would likely have resembled their true age, as opposed to appearing 10 years older. Also, people are far more accurate in identifying the age of people close to their own age, and such things have to be considered. A 15 year old seeing a 35 year old man might call him middle-aged, or might think he's 28, or even 40. A fellow 35 year old would most certainly NOT identify someone of that age as 'middle-aged' and would have a much better chance of getting his age right. Just as Marshall would not have called a 30 or 35 year old man 'middle aged', but likely would have called himself, and therefore someone close to his own age 'middle aged'. With this in mind, no responsible researcher could claim that Marshall's man was 30 years old.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Middle Age

30 wasn't and isn't middle-aged

"The Registrar General reported in 1841 that while mean life expectancy in Surrey was forty-five years, it was only thirty-seven in expectancy in London and twenty-six in Liverpool. The average age of "labourers, mechanics, and servants", at times of death was only fifteen. Mortality figures for crowded districts like Shoreditch, Whitechapel, and Bermondsey were typically half again or twice as high as those for middle-class areas of London."

The above is from: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/.../health10.html
if you want to check.

Life expectancy may have improved in the intervening 47 years, but not to any great degree in Whitechapel I suspect.
Age of majority was 21; life expectancy was 37; when did middle age begin then?

I've just realised that I'm in agreement with Fisherman on this thread. I hope it won't harm our relationship.

Regards, Bridewell

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. I'm sorry to say that you're not playing fair at all. We have no reason to suspect that Walter Dew, writing 50 YEARS after the fact, had any clue as to Charles Cross' age. Dew was working from memory and newspaper reports and likely concluded he was middle aged from the statements that he'd worked for the same company for 20 years. In fact, I thought Cross was a good 10 years older than the 38 you claim, but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of Cross.

As for the Frederick News, are you serious? You think the guy who wrote that article had any clue as to Emma Smith's real age?

And Packer's statement...That's really hitting below the belt, because as you know, in one of his other variations, he's describing a 'young man' of '30 years'.

So, returning to my point...a 30 year old is a 'young man'. A 45 year old or old is certainly middle-aged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

.. and the internal communications refer to a prostitute been found in Dorset St.

[lynn cates]

H O reports

Hello Simon. I think that the Home Office reports on Polly and Annie listed "prostitute."

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Show me any sign of sexually transmitted desease in these 5 women.
Prostitutes very commöly had them.

Hi Phil,

Hope your health is improving and everything finds you well.

We really don't know if any of the so-called 'canonicals' had sexually transmitted diseases at the time of their deaths. Unfortunately, all of the post-mortem reports have not survived. Those would have provided much more detail about the general physical condition of the victims than the medical testimonies given at the inquest; the testimonies largely concentrating on the physical evidence of the murders themselves. Of course, Gordon Brown did testify in his written statement that he saw no evidence of intercourse in the case of Catherine Eddowes.

Fortunately - although not a canonical - Mr. Phillips' post-mortem report on Alice McKenzie has survived and gives us a glimpse into the very detailed examinations that took place; information that would not be relayed at an inquest.
From Phillips' post-mortem report, July 22, 1889:

'Genital signs.

There is no sign of coitus.
Syphilitic Condylomata of vagina and ulceration of mucus membrane under clitoris.'

Phillips went on to state that the victim had hemorrhoids.