Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Catherine Eddowes Menstruating?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paul View Post
    As an idle aside, Brown looked for signs of Eddowes having had sex. Had she been menstruating do you think there would have been signs that he would have noticed and perhaps commented on?
    I don't really know. I think it's possible, maybe if there was blood on the walls of the vagina- which was still in tact, along with the cervix.

    Comment


    • I think this particular ship has sailed, but some may find these of interest nonetheless. Warning: MORE than you may want to know.

      http://forums.bettermedicine.com/sho...tiredness-help

      http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/...on/0100611.htm Allaho akbar!

      http://www.mum.org/pastgerm.htm

      http://kidshealth.org/kid/grow/girls...riods_end.html

      http://myperiodblog.wordpress.com/20...ruation-facts/

      Comment


      • Originally posted by admin tim View Post
        If the ship has sailed, what in such.nation is the current state of play regarding the theory that Eddowes dropped the apron piece in Goulston Street herself?

        I think the evidence is that the coroner made a determined effort to establish that she was wearing an apron and that we can safely conclude that she was, so can discard the idea that she was carrying two bits of apron. The question is therefore whether she would have torn her apron herself for whatever purpose. The suggestion that she was menstruating seems unsupported by any evidence at all, it being questioned whether she was even capable. The state of the apron piece, so lightly stained that it hadn't even penetrated the material, except one blood saturated corner, suggests that it had not been used for any roulette purposes and was, as suggested by those who saw it at the time, used to wipe something. Is that a fair summation?
        l

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paul View Post

          I think the evidence is that the coroner made a determined effort to establish that she was wearing an apron and that we can safely conclude that she was, so can discard the idea that she was carrying two bits of apron. The question is therefore whether she would have torn her apron herself for whatever purpose. The suggestion that she was menstruating seems unsupported by any evidence at all, it being questioned whether she was even capable. The state of the apron piece, so lightly stained that it hadn't even penetrated the material, except one blood saturated corner, suggests that it had not been used for any roulette purposes and was, as suggested by those who saw it at the time, used to wipe something. Is that a fair summation?
          l
          Throw in a dash of POSSIBLE evidence of nephritis and therefore a POSSIBLE link to the Lusk kidney and I would be good. I wouldn't casually dismiss the remarks of Dr. S. (Not suggesting you are, Paul.)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paul
            I think the evidence is that the coroner made a determined effort to establish that she was wearing an apron and that we can safely conclude that she was, so can discard the idea that she was carrying two bits of apron. The question is therefore whether she would have torn her apron herself for whatever purpose. The suggestion that she was menstruating seems unsupported by any evidence at all, it being questioned whether she was even capable. The state of the apron piece, so lightly stained that it hadn't even penetrated the material, except one blood saturated corner, suggests that it had not been used for any roulette purposes and was, as suggested by those who saw it at the time, used to wipe something. Is that a fair summation?
            My phraseology was chosen such due to the name of this thread - Was Catherine Eddowes Menstruating? Earlier there had been a spirited argument that it was not possible due to her age, health, etc. but the argument gradually came around such that the most partisan anti-menstruation advocate admitted that it would have been possible. The links I provided do support that position - that it would have been possible for her to have been menstruating at time of death. The probability? - aye, there's the rub, as at least one of the females participating in the discussion has pointed out.

            I think Paul's summation is clear and concise enough. I'm still not clear if an LVP autopsy protocol would have mentioned menstruation, though, but I wouldn't think that the uterus or fallopian tubes would have had to have been present to make that determination. In my poor student days of about 40 years ago I used to be a janitor and cleaned out restrooms in an industrial office complex. When there was a characteristic odor present in the Ladies' Room, I knew it was time to empty the sanitary napkin receptacle. Had Eddowes been menstruating, I would think that such would have been obvious to the physicians in attendance at the autopsy. Whether or not they would have formally reported the fact remains a question.

            Weren't there also faecal stains on the apron scrap? Multitasking in the LVP had its own meaning, and if that was Eddowes' own menstrual blood, the faeces might have been her own doing too.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by admin tim View Post
              the most partisan anti-menstruation advocate
              That rolls right off the tongue it does.....P.A.M.A.....

              And for the record I say there was about a 10% chance she wasn't in menopause. Couple that with the probability figures cited about the chance of her menstruating on any given night, and it is case closed IMHO.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by admin tim View Post
                Weren't there also faecal stains on the apron scrap? Multitasking in the LVP had its own meaning, and if that was Eddowes' own menstrual blood, the faeces might have been her own doing too.
                There were.....are you suggesting she wore some kind of diaper, Tim? Trying to get a visual here to explain what would be regarded as pretty poor hygiene.

                Comment


                • No diaper (or nappy), but if she were to have used the apron scrap as a makeshift sanitary napkin, it wouldn't have taken much more than a repositioning to convert the same scrap to makeshift comfort tissue (bog roll).

                  You may scoff, but remember, Howard's ancestors at that time were using cotton bolls for sanitary napkins and corn cobs for the purpose next slot over.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by admin tim View Post
                    My phraseology was chosen such due to the name of this thread - Was Catherine Eddowes Menstruating? Earlier there had been a spirited argument that it was not possible due to her age, health, etc. but the argument gradually came around such that the most partisan anti-menstruation advocate admitted that it would have been possible. The links I provided do support that position - that it would have been possible for her to have been menstruating at time of death. The probability? - aye, there's the rub, as at least one of the females participating in the discussion has pointed out.

                    I think Paul's summation is clear and concise enough. I'm still not clear if an LVP autopsy protocol would have mentioned menstruation, though, but I wouldn't think that the uterus or fallopian tubes would have had to have been present to make that determination. In my poor student days of about 40 years ago I used to be a janitor and cleaned out restrooms in an industrial office complex. When there was a characteristic odor present in the Ladies' Room, I knew it was time to empty the sanitary napkin receptacle. Had Eddowes been menstruating, I would think that such would have been obvious to the physicians in attendance at the autopsy. Whether or not they would have formally reported the fact remains a question.

                    Weren't there also faecal stains on the apron scrap? Multitasking in the LVP had its own meaning, and if that was Eddowes' own menstrual blood, the faeces might have been her own doing too.
                    I did appreciate that you were referring to the title of the thread and I agree that it has probably run its course. I just wondered where it left us overall.

                    Actually, I think the question about whether or not Eddowes was menstruating was moot to begin with because even if she had been it was unlikely that she would have torn her apron when she had undergarments she could have ripped up and various pieces of rags and material on her person (including the 12 rags which a good argument could be made for being used for such a purpose). I think it has been shown that she was capable of menstruating and that the 12 rags probably confirm this, but as Jenni pointed out, there is no evidence at all that she was menstruating at the time. As for the blood and faecal matter found on the GS piece of apron, one corner was saturated with blood but the staining was slight and hadn't penetrated the material, so it is questionable whether it was used for any purpose other than that suggested at the time, namely used to wipe hands or the knife.

                    Comment


                    • Apart from Trevor, I think we've all agreed, all along that there is no evidence Eddowes was menstruating when she was murdered? That must be a first!

                      Good summary, Paul.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                        Yes sorry, but I think stating that the care taken on listing this murder was far better than the others a fair observation per se

                        Yours Jeff
                        The procedure was set for all post mortems Jeff,

                        Bonds account of Kelly is pretty exstensive.

                        Monty

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                          The procedure was set for all post mortems Jeff,

                          Bonds account of Kelly is pretty exstensive.

                          Monty
                          And Bond's account wasn't the main post mortem either. Dr Philips original may have been even more detailed.
                          I can't remember how much post mortem info is missing and whose-some is taken from newspaper coverage of the inquest isn't it? So that will make it seem less detailed in some cases, too.

                          Comment


                          • None of the actual post mortem reports for any of the 1888 murders have survived. As Debs has noted, the physicians did refer to parts of their notes when testifying at the inquest.

                            You can bet Phillips' post mortem report would have been much more extensive than Bond's on the Kelly murder. Phillips was the medico of record in the case while Bond was there to report back to Anderson; a simple report rather than a detail of the examinations.

                            Phillips' surviving PM notes on the McKenzie murder show how detrimental it is that his notes on the other murders have not survived.
                            Best Wishes,
                            Cris Malone
                            ______________________________________________
                            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                            Comment


                            • Debs, Cris

                              Absolutely.

                              Monty

                              Comment


                              • just one point or two.

                                Is it not quite normal (at least as I have understood it) that women can have periods of little bleeding?
                                Is it not possible that a woman at the start or the end of a period experiences very few "spots" of blood in some cases?
                                Is it also possible that a woman with a nutritional defect, or one suffering from malnutrition, doesn't neccessarily lose their period, but that it becomes very much delapidated, "spotted" and also weak?

                                All I did was to ask around and found the answers to most, if not all of these was "yes"... it does happen..irregularly, but known.

                                You pays yer money yer takes yer choice.

                                Phil
                                from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X