Annie's last meal

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

ââââââ

Another point on this, Al.

Any proposal as to why Dr Phillips didn't mention the food in Annie's stomach is mere speculation.

Nobody thought it important, including the coroner who didn't press Dr Phillips on the specifics.

It could be speculated that Timothy Donovan was up early in the inquest. He mentioned potatoes. Between Dr Phillips and the coroner, the food in Annie's stomach had already been mentioned by Donovan and so they didn't deem it expedient to repeat the specifics, i.e. it was taken for granted by Dr Phillips and the coroner that everyone would know the food in question was potatoes given that Donovan had mentioned it.

The aforementioned is speculation, but it is as least as good as any other possibility.

It remains insufficient to make a claim of any substance, however, so I'll leave it at: only Dr Phillips knows why he didn't specify the food.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

ââââââ

Given the food options available to Annie: bread, potatoes, farinaceous edibles and so on; Dr Phillips would have known the food in Annie's stomach.

Why Dr Phillips did not describe the food at the post-mortem, there is no answer. Only Dr Phillips will know.

[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.

​​​​​​

[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.

[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

[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".

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DJA]

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

[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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You've just read it wrong.

Just go with whatever you think, Sherlock.