Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
View Post
58 women. Hardly representative, and as every woman knows,
each woman's cycle is unique to her, even in the case
of sisters and mothers/daughters.
There's no evidence that Eddowes had VD.
Eddowes may have been undernourished, but she was
far from emaciated, as evidenced by the fat and muscle
tone in her arms and legs, rib cage, etc. Emaciated is
concentration camp inmates, Biafrans during the famine,
and the severely anorexic. She'd just spent the previous
month working in the hop fields, from about 6 in the morning
until about 5 at night (See "Of Human Bondage", Somerset
Maugham, p. 625, Google books, free) and then walked
37 miles to return to London. She was tiny, there's no
arguing that, but I think she was also tough as old boots.
According to her landlord, Eddowes lived at Flower and
Dean Street since 1881 and prior to that she can be
found on the 1851, 61, 71, and 81 censuses living indoors.
According to those who knew her:
Frederick Wilkinson, deputy at Cooney's, says Catherine
"was not often in drink and was a very jolly woman, often
singing." She was generally in the lodging house for the
night between 9 and 10 PM. He says she wasn't in the
habit of walking the streets and he had never heard of
or seen her being intimate with anyone other than Kelly.
Kelly himself claimed no knowledge of her ever walking
the streets. He says that she sometimes drank to excess
but wasn't in the habit. Another sister, Eliza Gold, said
that Catherine was of sober habits.
I realize these people had a vested interest in making
these statements (Wilkinson protecting the reputation of
Cooney's, Kelly and Gold protecting Eddowes' name and
reputation and their own), but the fact that her liver was
found at autopsy to be healthy, tends to confirm what
they had to say about her drinking. There's no doubt that
she was off her face on the night she was killed, but that
does not signify that she suffered from "alcohol addiction"
by any means. Even if she was a "binge drinker" you'd
expect some fatty degeneration or cirrohsis of her liver,
and apparently there was none.
It is my opinion, that she was still capable of menstruation
at the time of her death at 46 years, 4.5 months, otherwise
she'd have no need of carrying a dozen rags around. These
wouldn't have been used for other sanitary purposes such
as urination or defecation, as she'd have been forced into
a cycle of constantly washing them. It's more likely that
she used some sort of scrap paper which was disposed of
after use. I don't believe she was menstruating at the
time of her death, as it is not mentioned in the autopsy
report and that area of her body was examined and it
was noted that there were no signs of recent connection.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
Comment