If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
Thanks so much and a thousand apologies, Hunter. Perused it too quick and mised p. 508, where the section about evidence for veneral disease is. Yes, a very detailed report and gives an accurate impression of how Victorian coroners proceeded with a post mortem examination.
No clue whatsoever how much 2 guineas are in relation to the British pound and to today. But it doesn't sound like much.
Finally we are back to the original thread topic. The Nichols murder and the article Simon posted that wondered about the slaughtermen around the corner.
Since we know detectives questioned each slaughterman individually, then, are you, Lynn saying that:
(1) That was a lie, the police didn't question any of the slaughtermen but wrote a false police report instead.
(2) If not, your answer for why this matters and you mention it now.
Or anybody. Were the police lying? Did they not question the slaughtermen individually? That's the whole point of this thread, right? Were the police lying about questioning the slaughtermen? Because the article Simon posted seemed to be written oblivious to that fact.
Lynn, you knowing logic and all, that would be the first thing I would want to know in discussing it with you. Where you stand on that. Then we can go from there.
Roy
Last edited by Roy Corduroy; 05-24-2012, 08:08 PM.
"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
Thanks Mr. Fisherman, glad I could bring a small dose of levity.
I do think we have some ancient codgers out here who probably coexisted with the ripper......perhaps someone holds the secret and is just toying with us...?
It would be most amusing if we required a recent photo and date-of-birth here so we could all know who we're yelling at..........!
"Since we know detectives questioned each slaughterman individually, then, are you, Lynn saying that:
(1) That was a lie, the police didn't question any of the slaughtermen but wrote a false police report instead."
Not at all. Perhaps I was not clear. I don't believe Tompkins involved in Polly's death. Full stop. But I DO think Polly was headed there, as a default, possibly recalling a former occasion of success.
"(2) If not, your answer for why this matters and you mention it now."
It matters ONLY as an explanation for Polly's movements AFTER not doing so well in her "business venture."
"Were the police lying?"
Don't think so.
"Did they not question the slaughtermen individually?"
Well, I should think so. But, perhaps I mistake?
"That's the whole point of this thread, right?"
Can't properly say.
"Were the police lying about questioning the slaughtermen?"
See above.
"Because the article Simon posted seemed to be written oblivious to that fact."
Not sure, but seems the writer had a different opinion about the men.
"Lynn, you knowing logic and all, that would be the first thing I would want to know in discussing it with you. Where you stand on that. Then we can go from there."
Sounds promising. Delighted to discuss. Of course, I covered this in my article, but it was speculative.
A guinea was one pound and one shilling, so £1.05p in decimal currency. The modern equivalent would be somewhere between £200 & £250 I would have thought. I'll wait and see how many people agree with that as an approximation!
Regards, Bridewell.
I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.
Comment