Annie's last meal

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Oh, I love a nice salad.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mmmmmmmmmmm! CHIPS!!!

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

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

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.

[Ms Diddles]

I’ll be having very unhealthy fish and chips tomorrow Ms D.

Mmmmmmmmmmm! CHIPS!!!

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Awwwww, Herlock!

Don't spoil my carb-deprived fun!

I'm enjoying all this talk of light fluffy baked potatoes, smooth mash and waxy spuds in pies.

Joshua's post was pure potato porn!!!

Granted, the stuff about mastication and post-consumption appearance is rather less appealing........

I’ll be having very unhealthy fish and chips tomorrow Ms D.

[Ms Diddles]

Potatoes are farinaceous. End of discussion. And so, moving on…..

Awwwww, Herlock!

Don't spoil my carb-deprived fun!

I'm enjoying all this talk of light fluffy baked potatoes, smooth mash and waxy spuds in pies.

Joshua's post was pure potato porn!!!

Granted, the stuff about mastication and post-consumption appearance is rather less appealing........

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's one interpretation I suppose.

I think this is a clear distinction between potato and farinaceous edibles.

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

Edited to add: Dr Phillips did not state "food" as you suggest, he stated "farinaceous edibles".

You're free to design your own interpretation, Jeff.

Potatoes are farinaceous. End of discussion. And so, moving on…..

[Herlock Sholmes]

A whole thread on Annie’s Last Meal when we have absolutely no way of knowing, or ever knowing, what Annie ate last. It’s got so desperate that it’s being claimed that she couldn’t have eaten in her missing 3½ hours but it’s fair game to suggest that Catherine did in her missing ‘less than 40 minutes.’ You really couldn’t make this stuff up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sure looks like it.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're cluttering this thread up with nonsense as you did in the John Richardson thread.

You're absolutely aware that Jeff and my reply was talking of the food found in Liz's stomach.

From here on in, you will be getting replies from me only when you're not dishonest in your approach.

Once again, it's your failure to read posts properly which is cluttering up this thread with nonsense.

What Jeff posted in #227 was a general statement:

"Oh dear. No, the medical men of the day made a distinction between material they could specifically identify and material they could classify and material they could not identify beyond being "food"."

For some strange reason, obviously misunderstanding the point, you then responded in #228 to say:

"Dr Phillips did not state "food" as you suggest, he stated "farinaceous edibles".

Not only was Jeff not suggesting that Dr Phillips had stated "food" in the case of Stride but he expressly mentioned that "farinaceous material" had been found in Stride's stomach.

Start to read things properly please!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Most people who cook will tell you there's basically two types of potatoes: Floury or waxy.

Floury (sometimes called starchy) potatoes fall apart easily when cooked, and so make light and fluffy bakers, or smooth mash.

Waxy potatoes keep their shape better when cooked, and are thus used in things like stews and pies.

Obviously there's a lot of factors to consider - preparation, cooking method and time, how thoroughly they were masticated, etc - but generally, waxy ones would be more easily identifiable as potatoes than floury, for a given period after consumption.

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"?

[Fleetwood Mac]

We need to be clear about this.

Dr Phillps DID merely state "food" in respect of the stomach contents of Annie Chapman.

You're cluttering this thread up with nonsense as you did in the John Richardson thread.

You're absolutely aware that Jeff and my reply was talking of the food found in Liz's stomach.

From here on in, you will be getting replies from me only when you're not dishonest in your approach.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's one interpretation I suppose.

I think this is a clear distinction between potato and farinaceous edibles.

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

Edited to add: Dr Phillips did not state "food" as you suggest, he stated "farinaceous edibles".

You're free to design your own interpretation, Jeff.

We need to be clear about this.

Dr Phillps DID merely state "food" in respect of the stomach contents of Annie Chapman.

In the case of Liz Stride, while some newspapers reported the evidence as "farinaceous edibles" others reported "farinaceous particles" (Daily Chronicle) or "farinaceous powder" (the Times), although it makes little difference.

But let me be crystal clear. Given that Dr Phillips said no more than a "little food" was in Annie Chapman's stomach, that could have been ANYTHING.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have absolutely no knowledge of the OJ Simpson case but here's a link from the Los Angeles Times:

Delay in Notifying Coroner Hurt Simpson Case Probe : Investigation: Efforts to pinpoint time of deaths were hampered, tough LAPD policy was violated. - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Pertinent sections as follows:

In all, records show, it was more than 10 hours between the time the bodies were discovered and the time Ratcliffe conducted those tests, including a liver temperature test.

Golden testified that he relied on Ratcliffe’s field observations and the contents of the victims’ stomachs to place the deaths within a three-hour “range.”

Indeed, Los Angeles Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin L. Golden testified at Simpson’s preliminary hearing in July that the murders were committed “somewhere between 9 (p.m.) and midnight,” and he admitted under cross-examination that the standard measurements upon which he based his decision would have been more accurate if taken sooner.

“The farther away you go from the time of death, the more inaccurate you become,” said Werner U. Spitz, former Wayne County, Mich., medical examiner and author of a widely used forensic pathology textbook.

It seems we have a situation here whereby Ratcliffe examined the bodies 10 hours after the bodies were discovered and gave a three-hour TOD time range. Furthermore, there is a belief among those United States forensic people that a longer PMI reduces the possibility of an accurate TOD and by extension a shorter PMI increases the chance of an accurate TOD. You may want to take note that those people do not hint at an accurate TOD range being impossible.

Highlights:

1) Your 'minimum 13 hours TOD estimate' is factually incorrect (assuming the Los Angeles Times is correct). The range given was 3 hours.
2) There was a 10 hour PMI interval; in your scenario Dr Phillips' equivalent was 1 hour.
3) Dr Phillips gave a time range of between 2 and 3 hours in a reasonably possible 4 hour range (2.30am to 6.30am). This means that Ratcliffe was being at least as precise as Dr Phillips with her 3 hour range given the 10 hour PMI.
4) Those people mentioned in the article, United States forensic pathologist types, certainly believe that it is possible to give an estimated TOD range with accuracy. Something that you have consistently argued against.
5) Those same people tell us that a shorter PMI means an estimated TOD is more likely to be accurate. Dr Phillips was involved with a very short PMI: 1 hour in the event your scenario is to be believed.

Unlike some on here I’ll admit to the error on the 13 hours. The perils of making a quick post before bed. No one’s fault but my own.

That said….

In your post, Fleetwood, you cite the testimony of Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin Golden. Perhaps you are unaware that Golden was regarded as being so grossly incompetent that "prosecutors declined to allow him to testify at trial".

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...612-story.html

He was said to have had "a history of mistakes" https://www.tampabay.com/archive/199...opsy-mistakes/
When the LA coroner testified at trial he corrected Golden's estimated time range from 9pm to 12.45am. Bear in mind that this was the official range for TOD given at trial by the corner for Los Angeles.

But the key thing about this estimate is that it is known to be wrong and was known to be wrong at the time.

Ron Goldman was seen alive at 9.50am leaving for Nicole's house and Nicole herself had spoken to people on the telephone at around 9.40pm. The bodies of Nicole and Goldman were found at about 12.10am. So the fact of the matter is that, without any medical evidence at all, the murder could only realistically have taken place between 10pm and midnight. And, in fact, it is believed that they occurred at 10.15pm on the basis of a dog barking at that time.

That's why the evidence put forward at the trial (and indeed by Golden at a preliminary hearing) was a joke. It included so much time when the couple were certainly alive. Even with all the most modern techniques it couldn't be narrowed down more than this.

Yes, there was a delay in the medical examiner arriving at the scene and being given access to the bodies but one thing the medical examiner did not do, nor did anyone else, was feel if the body was cold or warm. An electric thermometer was used to take the temperature of the liver and the air temperature was recorded. Calculations were made to estimate the time of death based on that. But they couldn't do any better than what was already known.

For Fishy to respond to your post by saying that "more modern day medical advice that agrees t.o.d. estimate can be accurate from a Victorian dr" is a joke. They couldn't even get it accurate in 1994! While one commentator in the press claimed that the estimate would have been more accurate if the medical examiner had got to the bodies sooner this was disputed in evidence by the coroner. As summarized by the prosecution:

Even if a coroner’s examiner had been on the scene almost instantly, it would not have made any difference, Kelberg said. Measurements such as the temperatures of the body and the liver are always inexact, he said.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...841-story.html

The below story makes clear that experts differed over how much impact the delay had in assessing time of death.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...667-story.html

Most pertinently for this thread, a forensic pathologist hired by the defence at OJ Simpson's trial admitted that 'there was no way of looking at the stomach contents and determining whether Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered (at) 10:15, 10:20, 10:25, 10:30, 10:50.' 'I'm not claiming that,' the defense expert said. 'I don't want to have to defend it.'

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1995/08...1968808113600/

In other words, even with using an electric thermometer, and with all of modern knowledge available, it's not possible to do today what Phillips thought he could do, or was trying to do, in 1888.

[Joshua Rogan]

Oh dear. No, the medical men of the day made a distinction between material they could specifically identify and material they could classify and material they could not identify beyond being "food".

Just because they could identify some bits as potatoes does not mean that the farinaceous material had to be something else, it just means the doctors could not specifically identify it (so maybe it was potatoes, or maybe it was pasta, or bread, or whatever).

See, it is not like all potatoe in her stomach will suddenly change from identifiable to nonidentifiable material, so it is possible that we are seeing that transition period.perio
.- Jeff

Most people who cook will tell you there's basically two types of potatoes: Floury or waxy.

Floury (sometimes called starchy) potatoes fall apart easily when cooked, and so make light and fluffy bakers, or smooth mash.

Waxy potatoes keep their shape better when cooked, and are thus used in things like stews and pies.

Obviously there's a lot of factors to consider - preparation, cooking method and time, how thoroughly they were masticated, etc - but generally, waxy ones would be more easily identifiable as potatoes than floury, for a given period after consumption.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh dear. No, the medical men of the day made a distinction between material they could specifically identify and material they could classify and material they could not identify beyond being "food".

Just because they could identify some bits as potatoes does not mean that the farinaceous material had to be something else, it just means the doctors could not specifically identify it (so maybe it was potatoes, or maybe it was pasta, or bread, or whatever).

See, it is not like all potatoe in her stomach will suddenly change from identifiable to nonidentifiable material, so it is possible that we are seeing that transition period.perio
.- Jeff

That's one interpretation I suppose.

I think this is a clear distinction between potato and farinaceous edibles.

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

Edited to add: Dr Phillips did not state "food" as you suggest, he stated "farinaceous edibles".

You're free to design your own interpretation, Jeff.