Annie's last meal

[FISHY1118]

How can the evidence point to an earlier TOD? 3 witnesses don’t point to an earlier TOD. Thiblin and Biggs both accepted in black and white that Annie could have been killed later (something that you bizarrely deny) and every single expert in every single textbook or paper written tell us categorically that Phillips couldn’t have made a completely accurate assessment when modern day experts can’t do it with all of the advances in knowledge and technology. Fishy you really need to take a deep breath on this. Your taking this as a cause that needs to be defended. As if you’re somehow defending Phillips honour. You’re not looking at the evidence calmly and rationally.

You tend to agree with Trevor a lot and that’s fine but Trevor (favours an earlier TOD) himself now accepts that Phillips simply cannot be relied upon. I can’t speak for George but it’s noticeable that he hasn’t claimed that Phillips must have been accurate. George tends toward an earlier TOD but (although I could be wrong) I don’t think that denies the unreliability of Phillips. If this is indeed the case then Fishy, that means that we now have only 2 people who believe that a Victorian Doctor could achieve an impossible level of accuracy. You should look around you Fishy.

Simple herlock the evidence point to an earlier t.o.d if the witnesses are considered unsafe unreilable ambiguious and contradictory, and to me and other they clearly are and have been shown to be over many many post which youve have read . Trevor , George, Harry Mac agree on that , stop making up new ways to avoid this simple concept. You dont see it that way, that doesnt bother me but what does and your bigest mistake is telling others we cant

You have also read Fishermans post regarding Modern day expert and Dr Phillips . So thats done and dusted as far as Dr Phillips medical opinion goes that supports 2 hour probably more t.o.d

[Herlock Sholmes]

You mean like the fact that the evidence also , which has been shown over 1000 posts points to an earlier time of death that your in denial with ? Thats also a fact.

How can the evidence point to an earlier TOD? 3 witnesses don’t point to an earlier TOD. Thiblin and Biggs both accepted in black and white that Annie could have been killed later (something that you bizarrely deny) and every single expert in every single textbook or paper written tell us categorically that Phillips couldn’t have made a completely accurate assessment when modern day experts can’t do it with all of the advances in knowledge and technology. Fishy you really need to take a deep breath on this. Your taking this as a cause that needs to be defended. As if you’re somehow defending Phillips honour. You’re not looking at the evidence calmly and rationally.

You tend to agree with Trevor a lot and that’s fine but Trevor (favours an earlier TOD) himself now accepts that Phillips simply cannot be relied upon. I can’t speak for George but it’s noticeable that he hasn’t claimed that Phillips must have been accurate. George tends toward an earlier TOD but (although I could be wrong) I don’t think that denies the unreliability of Phillips. If this is indeed the case then Fishy, that means that we now have only 2 people who believe that a Victorian Doctor could achieve an impossible level of accuracy. You should look around you Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

What does that mean? The majority go for a later TOD. I’m simply stating a fact. Unless you’re in denial about that too?

You mean like the fact that the evidence also , which has been shown over 1000 posts points to an earlier time of death that your in denial with ? Thats also a fact.

[Abby Normal]

Mmmmmmmmmmm! CHIPS!!!

Nice farinaceous chips (with salt, vinegar and mushy peas???!!)

Sorry - I'm de-railing here!!!

we need to ask Samwise Gamgee. hes an expert on all things " PO-TA-TOES" lol

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not when it comes to you Sadly Herlock

What does that mean? The majority go for a later TOD. I’m simply stating a fact. Unless you’re in denial about that too?

[FISHY1118]

You again misjudge the majority Fishy.

Not when it comes to you Sadly Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll assume your links are genuine.

What do we have:

1) Dr Phillips made a clear distinction between potatoes and farinaceous edibles (Liz Stride inquest). A medical man at that time in that place.

2) You have provided some links from other sources which include potato, among others, as a farinaceous edible.

It's interesting how you twist the sources I provided. Those sources didn't say anything about "farinaceous edibles". They spoke of "farinaceous aliments", "farinaceous substances" and "farinaceous food". All terms which Dr Phillips did not use, although he might have referred to "farinaceous particles" or "farinaceous powder", depending on which report of the Stride inquest was correct. For that reason, it is not at all "clear" that Phillips was excluding potatoes as a farinaceous food.

But, in any case, it was Dr Brown who conducted the inquest on Kate Eddowes, not Dr Phillips, so Dr Phillips' use of language doesn't help us at all. I've just clearly demonstrated from, sources which are certainly genuine and which can all be easily found on the British Newspaper Archive, that potato fell into the category of a farinaceous substance during the 1880s. I mean, did you miss the fact that it was a medical man who said in 1883 that "farinaceous substances - potato and wheat" were contained in an individual's stomach contents? For that reason, it's impossible to say that Dr Brown was excluding potato when he referred to "farinaceous food" being in Kate's stomach (and I seem to recall that you initially tried to deny that he did find farinaceous food in her stomach!).

3) Annie was last seen eating at 1.45am: the food was potatoes.

4) 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

5) Annie had a disease of the lungs.

6) Catherine had a chronic kidney disease which disrupts the digestion process.

It's astonishing that you have deliberately excluded the fact that Annie was suffering from severe malnutrition which, as we've already discussed, and you haven't denied, can disrupt the digestion process. It cancels out Kate's kidney problems and means that Annie could have eaten exactly the same food as Kate did five hours before her (Annie's) death, and it would be no surprise to find a very small amount of it in her stomach.

Have you already forgotten the question I asked you in #204 but which you couldn't bring yourself to answer and still haven't:

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

You ducked that one, didn't you? Do you want to attempt it now?

Reasonable conclusion:

1) Annie ate easily digested food at 1.45am. In the event she was murdered at 5.30am, it is probable that she ate again.

2) We don't know what Catherine ate, and it follows how easily digestible and how long it would take, and she had a disease which disrupted the digestion process. Catherine's last meal could reasonably have been prior to being locked up.

3) It follows a comparison cannot be made.

4) Finally, the questions posed in the OP remain: from where and why did Annie get this food after 1.45am?

Edited: point 3.

What I find curious is that you don't seem to be at all interested in the following three questions;

From where and why did Kate get the food found in her stomach?

From where and why did Liz get the food found in her stomach?

From where and why did Mary Jane get the food found in her stomach?

What's so special about Annie that we need to ask such a question of HER?

It just so happens that Annie, out of ALL the Ripper victims, was seen to have eaten some food a few hours prior to her death. And, bizarrely, some people seem to think that this was the only food she could possibly have eaten prior to her death.

She could have eaten some food before the potato, or after the potato. We just don't know. Which is just one reason why the stomach contents point is dead in the water. The other, of course, being that it wouldn't even be surprising for a small amount of potato to still be in her stomach less than four hours after she'd eaten it.

The game is truly over.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

You didn't seem very convinced when I posted the Edinburgh Review extract so here's three more for you:


The Hour, 21 October 1875

"It cannot be gainsaid that amongst the farinaceous aliments the potato holds a distinguished place."

Western Gazette, 5 October 1883

Inquest into death of former Superintendent Smith of the Yeovil Police.

From the City Analyst’s Laboratory, 36 Broad Street, Bath:

"The stomach…contained about 4ozs of semi-fluid mass of a brownish colour, consisting of (1) considerable quantities of fat; (2) farinaceous substances – potato and wheat; (3) particles of nearly digested beef; (4) some pieces of apple; (5) traces of alcohol; (6) 0.69 grains of acetic acid; probably derived from vinegar in the oxidation of alcohol (7) mucus with a little blood; (8) 1-200^th part of a grain of lead in solution."

Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, 25 February 1888

"THE FEEDING OF INFANTS

SIR – In last week’s Weekly Chronicle I find an article written on the above subject by a Newcastle physician, wherein he advocates the preparation called Liebig’s Malt Food for Infants. He deprecates all farinaceous food, such as bread and flour, boiley, cornflower, arrowroot, potatoes, soup, oatmeal, rice, etc. etc., as being unfit food for infants, and this no doubt on account of the starchy matter contained in their composition…."

NB “boiley” is a meal of milk and bread, boiled.

As I said ages ago…. game over on this point. I’m dying to read your next instalment of wriggling.

I'll assume your links are genuine.

What do we have:

1) Dr Phillips made a clear distinction between potatoes and farinaceous edibles (Liz Stride inquest). A medical man at that time in that place.

2) You have provided some links from other sources which include potato, among others, as a farinaceous edible.

3) Annie was last seen eating at 1.45am: the food was potatoes.

4) 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

5) Annie had a disease of the lungs.

6) Catherine had a chronic kidney disease which disrupts the digestion process.

Reasonable conclusion:

1) Annie ate easily digested food at 1.45am. In the event she was murdered at 5.30am, it is probable that she ate again.

2) We don't know what Catherine ate, and it follows how easily digestible and how long it would take, and she had a disease which disrupted the digestion process. Catherine's last meal could reasonably have been prior to being locked up.

3) It follows a comparison cannot be made.

4) Finally, the questions posed in the OP remain: from where and why did Annie get this food after 1.45am?

Edited: point 3.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Fleetwood,

You didn't seem very convinced when I posted the Edinburgh Review extract so here's three more for you:


The Hour, 21 October 1875

"It cannot be gainsaid that amongst the farinaceous aliments the potato holds a distinguished place."

Western Gazette, 5 October 1883

Inquest into death of former Superintendent Smith of the Yeovil Police.

From the City Analyst’s Laboratory, 36 Broad Street, Bath:

"The stomach…contained about 4ozs of semi-fluid mass of a brownish colour, consisting of (1) considerable quantities of fat; (2) farinaceous substances – potato and wheat; (3) particles of nearly digested beef; (4) some pieces of apple; (5) traces of alcohol; (6) 0.69 grains of acetic acid; probably derived from vinegar in the oxidation of alcohol (7) mucus with a little blood; (8) 1-200^th part of a grain of lead in solution."

Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, 25 February 1888

"THE FEEDING OF INFANTS

SIR – In last week’s Weekly Chronicle I find an article written on the above subject by a Newcastle physician, wherein he advocates the preparation called Liebig’s Malt Food for Infants. He deprecates all farinaceous food, such as bread and flour, boiley, cornflower, arrowroot, potatoes, soup, oatmeal, rice, etc. etc., as being unfit food for infants, and this no doubt on account of the starchy matter contained in their composition…."

NB “boiley” is a meal of milk and bread, boiled.

As I said ages ago…. game over on this point. I’m dying to read your next instalment of wriggling.

"IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT AMONGST THE FARINACEOUS ALIMENTS THE POTATO HOLDS A DISTINGUISHED PLACE"

That's a cracking sentence!

Someone's gotta get that tattooed on their arm. In gothic script, ideally!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this needs clarification in terms of its meaning in relation to the discussion:

Can you expand upon how you have arrived at this conclusion:

but generally, waxy ones would be more easily identifiable as potatoes than floury, for a given period after consumption.

And, are you suggesting that Dr Phillips would not have been able to detect 'floury potatoes' and instead would have referred to that food as "farinaceous edibles"?

Hi Fleetwood,

You didn't seem very convinced when I posted the Edinburgh Review extract so here's three more for you:


The Hour, 21 October 1875

"It cannot be gainsaid that amongst the farinaceous aliments the potato holds a distinguished place."

Western Gazette, 5 October 1883

Inquest into death of former Superintendent Smith of the Yeovil Police.

From the City Analyst’s Laboratory, 36 Broad Street, Bath:

"The stomach…contained about 4ozs of semi-fluid mass of a brownish colour, consisting of (1) considerable quantities of fat; (2) farinaceous substances – potato and wheat; (3) particles of nearly digested beef; (4) some pieces of apple; (5) traces of alcohol; (6) 0.69 grains of acetic acid; probably derived from vinegar in the oxidation of alcohol (7) mucus with a little blood; (8) 1-200^th part of a grain of lead in solution."

Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, 25 February 1888

"THE FEEDING OF INFANTS

SIR – In last week’s Weekly Chronicle I find an article written on the above subject by a Newcastle physician, wherein he advocates the preparation called Liebig’s Malt Food for Infants. He deprecates all farinaceous food, such as bread and flour, boiley, cornflower, arrowroot, potatoes, soup, oatmeal, rice, etc. etc., as being unfit food for infants, and this no doubt on account of the starchy matter contained in their composition…."

NB “boiley” is a meal of milk and bread, boiled.

As I said ages ago…. game over on this point. I’m dying to read your next instalment of wriggling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Speaking of 'blind', you top the charts on that one thats for sure , total lack of class, and no respect for other posters opinions .

But hey we all see it .

You again misjudge the majority Fishy.

[GBinOz]

One of life’s great mysteries - why are all the best foods bad for you. Why couldn’t salad be bad for you but kebabs super-healthy? That would be the world I want to live in.

I'm with you there Herlock, 100%.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

That’s because you don’t understand but just blindly echo every bit of biased nonsense that FM comes up with.

Speaking of 'blind', you top the charts on that one thats for sure , total lack of class, and no respect for other posters opinions .

But hey we all see it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, I love a nice salad.

It's the big wad of bread or side of chips to go with it that I miss!

I don’t mind a bit of salad with a kebab Ms D.. Or a slice of lettuce on a BLT. Or a bit of tomato on a triple thick horse burger. The problem is it takes up space on the plate where there should be chips.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Annie didn't get the food from the lodging house kitchen. She left the lodging house for a period of around half an hour and then returned with potatoes.

The fact Annie had to leave the kitchen to get some food should tell us there was no food on offer for her in the kitchen.

These common lodging houses were the bare bones of accommodation. Do you imagine there was food lying around at half one in the morning?



You're missing a pertinent point: Annie had eaten at 1.45am. Given that fact, she had need of a bed far more than food.



As I've been saying, I don't. Where's the evidence though? In fact, where's the reason in it never mind the evidence? Annie told the lodging house to keep her bed and wasn't planning on being long. She'd eaten, she'd had beer, the one thing she needed when she was thrown out of the lodging house was a bed.

Sorry for the late reply FM
You say that there was no food for her on offer at the kitchen, fair enough but some food would probably be in the kitchen. In a drawer , cupboard whatever. If Annie did put some chestnuts , a slice of cheese whatever in her pocket I doubt she would eat there and then. She would be accused of stealing. Now we know she had a quarrel over a bar of soap a few days earlier with Eliza Cooper, these were desperate times indeed.
I get your point about her having eaten with the baked potato FM but we simply do not know how she managed to come by it. If she did take something from the food storage in the kitchen, having eaten a potato in the following half hour, she perhaps saved whatever food she took till afterwards, particularly if it was cold and not warm like the spud. But when walking the streets all night Annie would probably feel hungry eventually and eat whatever was available. I have no proof of this, but being in the kitchen at around 1:30 am Annie possibly had an opportunity to take some bits and pieces [ when no one was looking , or around ], to consume later.
Regards Darryl