Annie's last meal

[DJA]

Surely it’s unlikely that she would have been given food at the station? Wouldnt the station sergeant who discharged her have said so in his evidence at the inquest? Instead he testified that "nothing was given to her" while she was in her cell. Hutt testified that he brought her out of her cell at 12:58am, then she had a brief conversation with the sergeant, then was discharged at "Just on 1". No mention of any free "supper" being provided at the odd time of 1am. So, on the known facts, it’s unlikely?

Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. The inspector, being out visiting, I was directed by Sergeant Byfield to see if any of the prisoners were fit to be discharged. I found the deceased sober, and after she had given her name and address, she was allowed to leave. I pushed open the swing-door leading to the passage, and said, "This way, missus." She passed along the passage to the outer door. I said to her, "Please, pull it to." She replied, "All right. Good night, old ****." (Laughter.) She pulled the door to within a foot of being close, and I saw her turn to the left.
The Coroner: That was leading towards Houndsditch? - Yes.
The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Is it usual to discharge prisoners who have been locked up for being drunk at all hours of the night? - Certainly.
[Coroner] How often did you visit the prisoners? - About every half-hour. At first the deceased remained asleep; but at a quarter to twelve she was awake, and singing a song to herself, as it were. I went to her again at half-past twelve, and she then asked when she would be able to get out. I replied: "Shortly." She said, "I am capable of taking care of myself now."
Mr. Crawford: Did she tell you where she was going? - No. About two minutes to one o'clock, when I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink." She said, "Well, what time is it?" I replied, "Just on one." Thereupon she said, "I shall get a ---- fine hiding when I get home, then."
[Coroner] Was that her parting remark? - That was in the station yard. I said, "Serve you right; you have no right to get drunk."
[Coroner] You supposed she was going home? - I did.
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
[Coroner] What is the distance from Mitre-square to your station? - About 400 yards.
[Coroner] Do you know the direct route to Flower and Dean-street? - No.
A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But Dr Brown did Kate's autopsy, not Phillips. We know what "farinaceous" means because it's in the dictionary. It relates to starchy foods such as bread and potatoes.

This is what Dr Phillips had to say at the Liz Stride inquest/post-mortem in relation to her stomach contents:

Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles

Do you see the clear distinction made by Dr Phillips? Potato. Farinaceous edibles.

This really should be the end of it, but I'd imagine not.

You're attempting to draw a parallel between Annie and Catherine. You can't. Catherine did not eat what Annie ate at 1.45am and Catherine had a chronic kidney disease which disrupts digestion.

Go with whatever you think.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You've just read it wrong.

Just go with whatever you think, Sherlock.

[Ms Diddles]

Here's a simple recipe for flour gruel:

2 teaspoons of flour
1 teaspoon of salt

Boil one cup water. Separately, drip water on flour and salt until it makes a paste. Add the paste to the boiling water. Stir to a semi-fluid consistency. Strain to eliminate film. Serve warm.

Hi Dave!

Yeah, I was just about to throw gruel into the mix, but you beat me to it!

Something of this nature would possibly explain why in Kate's case, the stomach contents were referred to simply as "farinaceous" material.

Presumably a potato would be identifiable as a potato, whereas something-gruel like would just be starchy sludge and thus described more generally.

That makes sense to me.

[DJA]

Yeah, I was just about to throw gruel into the mix, but you beat me to it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is what Dr Phillips had to say at the Liz Stride inquest/post-mortem in relation to her stomach contents:

Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles

Do you see the clear distinction made by Dr Phillips? Potato. Farinaceous edibles.

This really should be the end of it, but I'd imagine not.

You're attempting to draw a parallel between Annie and Catherine. You can't. Catherine did not eat what Annie ate at 1.45am and Catherine had a chronic kidney disease which disrupts digestion.

Go with whatever you think.

There’s no distinction made. He named 2 types a farinaceous foods then farinaceous food in general. You repeatedly try and shape science to suit your own requirements.

I'm not saying she did. But why couldn't Annie have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, the same amount of time before her death?

TB and malnutrition can also affect the digestive system so there's nothing in your point about Kate's kidneys.

[Fleetwood Mac]

TB and malnutrition can also affect the digestive system so there's nothing in your point about Kate's kidneys.

There is no evidence that Annie had gastrointestinal TB. It is very rare in comparison with TB of the lungs.

On malnutrition, you would have to show how malnutrition impacts the digestive process. You'd need to show that Annie's diet was in a much worse shape than Catherine's also. These are two women fallen on hard times, e.g. Catherine and John Kelly pawning boots.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not saying she did. But why couldn't Annie have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, the same amount of time before her death?

You were building a point around this.

That means you need to provide something of substance to support your point, and "why couldn't" is no longer a case.

In the end, it's pretty clear that the safe bet is that Catherine didn't eat a meal of potato or potatoes and nor did she eat after being let out of the nick.

You're free to draw your own conclusion but in the absence of something new on this, we're only going to be repeating ourselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You were building a point around this.

That means you need to provide something of substance to support your point, and "why couldn't" is no longer a case.

In the end, it's pretty clear that the safe bet is that Catherine didn't eat a meal of potato or potatoes and nor did she eat after being let out of the nick.

You're free to draw your own conclusion but in the absence of something new on this, we're only going to be repeating ourselves.

You haven't answered my question (as usual). It's funny, isn't it, how I answer all your questions but I have to keep repeating mine?

So I'll repeat it:

Why couldn't Annie have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, the same amount of time before her death?

Forget potatoes, which you are obsessed with. Dr Brown didn't say there were potatoes in Annie's stomach.

As you accept that the food eaten by Catherine was eaten before she went to the police station (about which I am certain you are correct) then I'll modify my question:

Why couldn't Annie have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, five hours before her death?

Either answer or accept that it's game over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence that Annie had gastrointestinal TB. It is very rare in comparison with TB of the lungs.

On malnutrition, you would have to show how malnutrition impacts the digestive process. You'd need to show that Annie's diet was in a much worse shape than Catherine's also. These are two women fallen on hard times, e.g. Catherine and John Kelly pawning boots.

The thing is Fleetwood, I don't need to show anything.

The stomach contents point was dead in the water long, long ago.

Three and half hours is well within the time-frame for digestion of any sort of food. So, if Annie ate a potato at around 2am, there is absolutely no reason for it not to still have been in the stomach at 5.30. It really is that simple.

If you want to make a point about stomach contents, you have to demonstrate that it's impossible for someone who ate a potato for it to still be in their stomach three and a half hours later, especially someone with a wasting disease and severe malnutrition. But you won't do it, because I know you can't do it.

That Catherine had partly digested food remaining in her stomach, which even you seem to agree she must have eaten more than five hours before her death, only makes the point even deader in the water.

But it's a sorry tale in which history repeats itself over and over on this forum when it comes to Annie's death. First, the newbies and amateur forensic pathologists get excited about a body going cold in an hour and they shout "impossible!". Then they learn that this is perfectly possible so they move on to get excited about rigor mortis commencing within an hour and they shout "impossible!". Then they learn that this is perfectly possible so (in their desperation) they move on to the stomach contents and they get excited about some food being in Annie's stomach three-and-a-half hours after she was last known to have eaten, and they shout "impossible!". But it's perfectly possible.

While I've very much enjoyed the frantic attempts to try and distinguish Catherine from Annie, as various posters move through all kinds of ingenious possibilities: a bag of chips purchased with Kate's non-existent money or free gruel handed out by the police, Kate's kidney problems, Kate supposedly being wealthier than Annie (ha ha!) but my favourite was the suggestion that Dr Brown didn't find food in Kate's stomach. I still haven't worked out what THAT was all about but it made me laugh.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why couldn't Annie have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, five hours before her death?

It's a pointless exercise.

This is where you do your, "which is more likely: a 3 hour timeframe or a 4 hour timeframe?" type of thing, and when you receive the only plausible answer you run around for a few pages shouting: "this is what I've been saying all along, game over!".

Once bitten; twice shy. I'll swerve it this time, Sherlock.

Let's keep the space free for sensible discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's a pointless exercise.

This is where you do your, "which is more likely: a 3 hour timeframe or a 4 hour timeframe?" type of thing, and when you receive the only plausible answer you run around for a few pages shouting: "this is what I've been saying all along, game over!".

Once bitten; twice shy. I'll swerve it this time, Sherlock.

Let's keep the space free for sensible discussion.

Thank you for your answer, Fleetwood, which I'll re-phrase in shorter form for the other members of the Forum: "There is no reason, Herlock, why Annie couldn't have eaten what Catherine did, or something similar, five hours before her death, so you are quite right, it's game over".

[JeffHamm]

Feel free to expand upon what you're saying, Jeff. As I said, I've no idea what point you were making: this happens.

In the end, Sherlock presented Dr Brown's statement as this:

"There was starchy food partly digested in Catherine's stomach."

He attempted to embed this manipulation of Dr Brown's statement, but that's not what Dr Brown said at all.

Dr Brown stated:

I removed the content of the stomach and placed it in a jar for further examination. There seemed very little in it in the way of food or fluid, but from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped.

As explained to you, "farinaceous" is a Latin term which broadly translates into "made from flour or meal".

These days, the term is now used to incorporate anything starchy.

You have a precedent from another medical man, Dr Phillips, who stated there were potatoes in Mary's stomach, as opposed to "farinaceous food". This should tell you that the medical men of the day did not mean potatoes when they stated: "farinaceous food".

Assuming this was wholewheat bread, and there's a decent chance, the human stomach doesn't fully digest wheat because we only have one stomach to fully break down it down, unlike say or cows or sheep. The undigested portions ferment.

In addition, Catherine had Bright's disease or what is known today as nephritis, a chronic kidney disease. Here is a link to a study for you (there are many more):

Patients with chronic kidney disease have abnormal upper gastro-intestinal tract digestive function: A study of uremic enteropathy - PubMed (nih.gov)

It states:

Chronic kidney disease was associated with dysmotility............reflecting abnormal digestive secretion and absorption.......chronic kidney disease adversely affects digestive function.

Conclusion to all of this:

Catherine could quite conceivably have eaten prior to being locked up and there remain: from the cut end partly digested farinaceous food escaped.

The problem is your incorrect belief that farinaceous refers only to products made from flour. While it includes them (breads, pastas, etc) it also includes starchy vegetables, like potatoes, and others.

It was not used in 1888 to only mean bread. It has two general definitions, though, one based upon texture (the grainy/mealy focus) and one based upon the starch content (basically, starchy foods).

So, that being said, we cannot state with certainty that the farinaceous material reported to be found in Kate's case was potato, or bread, or pasta, etc, but we can state it was probably some form of starchy food. Unless, of course, farinacious was being used to describe the texture of the material (i.e. it looked grainy/mealy, rather than it was a grain/meal product), but I'm not sure it is used that way.

Anyway, feel free to insist it must be bread or some other flour based product, but that would be to avoid the word's definition. I've come across nothing that indicates the meaning of farinaceous has changed since 1888 and your restating what appears to be your own idiosyncratic definition isn't going to make what follows any more pertinent as it is unlikely the Dr's were using your definition and were more likely using a generally accepted one, similar to that found in the Oxford Dictionary.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem is your incorrect belief that farinaceous refers only to products made from flour. While it includes them (breads, pastas, etc) it also includes starchy vegetables, like potatoes, and others.

This has been explained, Jeff.

The medical men of the day made a distinction between farinaceous foods and potatoes.

Dr Phillips, Liz Stride inquest:

Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This has been explained, Jeff.

The medical men of the day made a distinction between farinaceous foods and potatoes.

Dr Phillips, Liz Stride inquest:

Partly digested food, apparently consisting of cheese, potato, and farinaceous edibles.

Hi Mac,

So if Dr Phillips was capable of making the distinction of the specific components of Strides stomach contents, and as you point out, "medical men of the day" could make this distinction, why didn't Dr Phillips just say 'potato' when describing Annie's stomach contents? I mean, that would have cleared up a whole lot of mess.