Suspects.

Are we entirely surprised: A woman’s place was not in the home: New book challenges assumptions about women’s work in early modern history:

Far from being the unpaid homemakers and housewives of traditional historical record, women contributed to all the most important areas of the economy, such as agriculture, commerce, and care.
More than half of the work done by women in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries took place outside of the home, and around half of all housework and three-quarters of care work was conducted professionally for other households.

I posted this in a comment over at agonyaunt apropos of the woman who thinks her husband is too laid back (she sounds too tightly wound): ‘Rawdogging’ marathons: has gen Z discovered the secret to reclaiming our focus?:

Specifically, it means sitting still and staring into space for an extended period. Most importantly, without your phone.... It sounds as if the TikTok generation has somehow invented meditation. That’s one criticism levelled at rawdogging, but young people are battling monumental levels of distraction these days: while older generations had to learn to tolerate boredom, they must learn to cultivate it.

Back in the day late 70s/beginning of the 80s I encountered a person or two for whom meditation was just that, a dive into an escape from all the pressing troubles of their existing life (rather than dealing with those).

***

Rather different from the early modern images of witchcraft and witches that the popular mind tries to impose on The Middle Ages: Medieval witch stories, and a literary grandmother for the Wife of Bath.

***

Country diary: The unlikely success of wildlife in lead country: 'Bonsall, Derbyshire: It was, in fact, the poison in the ground that prevented this patch from becoming cattle country – then nature took care of itself'

***

This is fascinating: Remembering Quintard Taylor: Historian of the Black West and beyond

***

Poisoning Crimes and the ‘Mushroom Murderer’: Patterns and Precedents (Cassie Watson is one of the authors)

The fact that poisoning may not initially be suspected is yet another unique feature of this method of killing, and so proof of a criminal offence has often rested upon circumstantial evidence. The nineteenth-century development of forensic toxicology brought more cases to light and led to more convictions, but reliable toxicological and pathological evidence concerning the cause of illness and death is not the first but the second stage in a successful prosecution. There must be some formal suspicion raised first, to lead to a medico-legal investigation. Criminals might try to evade prosecution through claims of accidental poisoning, or may not be detected at all if symptoms are misattributed to other conditions.

I see estimates differ: I was working from the Sturgeon's Law that '90% of anything is crap' -

- whereas Ridley Scott is prepared to claim that '60% of films made today are “shit”, and of the remaining 40%, “25% … is not bad, and 10% is pretty good, and the top 5% is great”. and that this is pretty much so for the history of the movies over time (a fairly nuanced judgement I suppose) (though we should probably factor in the extent to which film, especially from the nitrate era, was a very frangible medium and there is a survival issue....)

From the Wikipedia article on Sturgeon's Law, some confirming opinions by other thinkerz:

'Nine-tenths of existing books are nonsense, and the clever books are the refutation of that nonsense' (Disraeli, 1870)

'Four-fifths of everybody's work must be bad. But the remnant is worth the trouble for its own sake. (Kipling, 1890)

'In much more than nine cases out of ten the only objectively truthful criticism would be "This book is worthless...'(Wot a grump George Orwell was, eh, 1946)

A 2009 paper in The Lancet estimated that over 85% of health and medical research is wasted.

(The trouble is you cannot tell in advance what is going to be, can you.)

On reflection I rather like Scott's 'not bad - pretty good - great' because one can, in fact, get enjoyment out of those levels.

This was posted over at agonyaunt but I see the post is locked so not linking there. It's I was asked to provide proof that I wasn’t involved with my husband’s death" (second one down here at Ask A Manager):

I woke up next to my husband in May and found he was dead. I am a teacher in training and the university I go to is well aware of the situation. I have a tattoo on my neck which is the last message he wrote to me, and one day a colleague at work said, “Do you have your name on your neck?” I explained the situation.
Last Friday I was pulled into a room by myself with no warning and asked if I had a letter from the police clearing me of his death. I was told I had overshared at work, and due to the nature of the death (he was only 49 and died unexpectedly) they would like to see a letter from the police clearing me of any wrongdoing. I became extremely upset, and told her I wouldn’t go any further than this unless HR was there to document the conversation and take notes. She then followed me into the car park and asked me not to leave as she “didn’t want me to leave like this.” I told her I was too upset to talk and she still asked me to stay.
I’m only three weeks into my course and am terrified they will look for any reason to throw me off. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

Why even mention the police? One assumes a doctor was involved and provided a certificate that it was a natural death. These happen. At much younger ages than 49.

(And ugh at the pursuing upset person.)

In a former former workplace the I think under 30 husband of a colleague died very unexpectedly of an asthma attack. Our sympathy was somewhat limited by the fact that she was having an affair with a colleague and was visibly ungriefstricken, but we didn't go around muttering 'she done 'im in' rather than making bitchy remarks about merry widows.

There was the famed fitness guru who dropped dead during a marathon.

There was some instance I think I commented on when scandalmongering tabloid journo was trying to drum up a case that some gay celeb had died in Sex Orgy because fit young men don't just drop dead, whereas in fact there are known syndromes that cause that.

But perish the thort that this should stop somebody who fancies themself - well, NOT Miss Marple, would Miss Marple have been anything like so crude if she had the slightest suspicion?