The Grisly

[Jon Guy]

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

[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

[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 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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 Lechmere,

I have no problem with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes possibly having been prostitutes—either full or part-time—but at the moment there appears to be only various anecdotal evidence in support of the idea.

And just in case anyone's wondering, I don't have an alternative theory up my sleeve for their presence on the streets.

Regards,

Simon

[Rubyretro]

As far as I'm concerned :

-all the C5 + Tabram (I don't know enough about the other murder victims to be able to comment..although I think that some of them were surely Jack's)
were prostitutes.

This is borne out by official paperwork, description in the papers, and behaviour on the nights of their deaths. I'm quite willing to believe that some of them were only part time prostitutes.

Unfortunately I have lent out my Neal Sheldon 'The victims of Jack the Ripper' book, and can't cite it here - but I'm pretty sure that Liz Stride had been up before the beak in London for prostitution, and it also says that her usual patch was more toward the docks.

If John Kelly didn't want to say that Kate was a prostitute it was probably by
love and guilt -I should think that she just lied to him when she got a bit of money (such as saying that she'd got it from her daughter), and it was convenient for him to turn a blind eye and profit from the proceeds whilst she was alive, but he didn't want to blacken her name after her death.

I think that Joe Barnett obviously loved MJK (or at least retained a fondness)
and didn't want to speak ill of the dead either -but it seems clear that it was a bone of contention between them.

The fact that none of these women had a VD listed at their autopsies would probably be because there is more than one way to skin a cat .

-That they were all alcoholics, to varying degrees, seems sure to me. Everything points to it.

-That people were considered 'middle aged' at thirty seems equally certain.
It doesn't make any difference if some people lived to 80 or 90...they didn't have all that cosmetic 'help' available to them in LVP. They had a different mindset and just let themselves go with something that appeared to be a fatality. It could be that some people were 'middle aged' for 2 thirds of their lives.

(I wonder if one reason that we can't find MJK is that she just lied incredibly about her age? Maybe she was over 30 ? I have a mate like that - It's luck and good genes and not entirely healthy living. She told me that she always lies about it.

Pity that I'm not into old blokes...otherwise I'd just take the tip and and lie and tell them that I am 60...I'd drop 10 years instantly at no cost...but I digress...just musing)