Annie's last meal

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s a question I meant to ask yesterday but forgot Joshua. Are we just assuming that they were potatoes because we know that she’d eaten some potatoes or did the Doctor specifically state that the food left in her stomach was definitely potatoes?

[DJA]

Arrogance really.Joshua

[DJA]

Coroner] Was there any disease? - Yes. It was not important as regards the cause of death. Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain. The stomach contained a little food.
[Coroner] Was there any appearance of the deceased having taken much alcohol? - No. There were probably signs of great privation. I am convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The article above does mention that smaller meals will tend to be completely removed from the stomach faster than larger ones. Unfortunately, we don't know how large a meal of potatoes Annie had, so we can't say if that would push for an earlier or later time. We do know that some was found in her stomach, and that it was recognized to be potatoes. Unfortunately, from the research in this area, when recognizable food was found in the stomach (as in Annie's case), it really doesn't narrow the time window down all that much. Moreover, Annie's chronic illness, and possibly increased stress levels, also need to be considered as these are things that can slow the emptying of the stomach.

So we have information that suggests her stomach could empty slower than the typical pattern, we lack information about the meal size which would be important to know to make a proper evaluation, and we have data that suggests that given what we do know she could have died anywhere from 0-10+ hours after her last meal, well, it's not looking like this avenue is likely to provide any real information for us. A shame, really, but that's often the way it goes.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

While looking at the results for partial gastric emptying I was forming in my mind a bell chart that seemed to be forming a peak between 2 and 5 hours. All very orderly and to be expected thinks I, and then at 10>, a sky rocket. I don't know what to think about this. I suspect the answer is hidden in variables that we cannot know. A section of the population eating fatty hard to digest foods combined with alcohol perhaps?

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

bingo. doubly pointless, because when excellent researchers like Jeff provide relevant data and studies, as he just did, posters like George and FM just move the goalposts, question it by going down the minutia rabbit hole and move the goal posts.

Time to polish up the old reading glasses Abby. I didn't question Jeff's results, I asked him a question. It was Jeff that raised a question as to relevance " it's not looking like this avenue is likely to provide any real information for us. A shame, really, but that's often the way it goes.". My appreciation of the quality of Jeff's contributions is not in doubt and, as Jeff has said, does not depend on my agreeing with every conclusion.

Cheers, George

[Indian Harry]

I too appreciate the analytical approach Jeff has been taking. Fresh new ways of looking at the available information could shed some new light on this old mystery.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

While looking at the results for partial gastric emptying I was forming in my mind a bell chart that seemed to be forming a peak between 2 and 5 hours. All very orderly and to be expected thinks I, and then at 10>, a sky rocket. I don't know what to think about this. I suspect the answer is hidden in variables that we cannot know. A section of the population eating fatty hard to digest foods combined with alcohol perhaps?

Best regards, George

Well, there are a bunch of things to consider, of course. For example, let's say that for 25% of the population, food will be retained in the stomach for 24 hours, and for 75% of the population, it will empty in 30 minutes (I'm making both of those up, of course, just to illustrate a point with a nice clear simple example).

Ok, now, let's also state that nobody can die within 30 minutes of their last meal.

But, after 30 minutes, they could die at any point, equally likely.

That means, once we divide them up into their PMI, all intervals will have roughly 25% with food in their stomachs, but given there are more hours from 10-24 than from 30 minutes to 10h, there will be more people in the last group (although 25% of them will have food in their stomachs).

Basically, everyone who died with food in their stomach at the 5-6 hour interval would also have had food in their stomach had they died at 2-4 hours. What we don't know is how many of the people who died in the 2-4 hour interval would still have had food in their stomach had they lived to be in the 5-6 hour interval, etc.

Looking at the percentages within each interval, though, doesn't show a strong reduction (sum the no-gastric and partial numbers, and divide by the total number in that time range) (so those plus the number of complete emptying), and there's no real trend for a strong decrease. If I sum all those with food (no/partial emptying) in under 10 hours as a percentage of all the cases under 10 hours, there's about a 62% chance of food being found, and for those over 10 hours it's about 58%, and those are not likely to differ, and even if they do, it's a pretty small difference which makes it nigh on impossible to do much.

Basically, given the information we have, I really don't think we have enough to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Basically, given the information we have, I really don't think we have enough to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

- Jeff

We have the views of experts in the field who spoke specifically of potatoes (see George's earlier post).

On the other hand, we have your link with no supporting information in terms of what the 500 cases ate.

In the event you're going to argue it may not have been potatoes in Annie's stomach, then it's back to the same questions posed in the OP.

[JeffHamm]

We have the views of experts in the field who spoke specifically of potatoes (see George's earlier post).

On the other hand, we have your link with no supporting information in terms of what the 500 cases ate.

In the event you're going to argue it may not have been potatoes in Annie's stomach, then it's back to the same questions posed in the OP.

As I say, I look forward to you providing research evidence, with sample sizes, from peer reviewed journals, to support your hypotheses.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I say, I look forward to you providing research evidence, with sample sizes, from peer reviewed journals, to support your hypotheses.

- Jeff

This lacks relevance. You should start a thread on my researching credentials.

We have the views of experts in the field, related specifically to Annie's last known meal (George's post).

And, we have your link which doesn't tell us what the 500 cases ate, and we know that while some food is easily digested most other food takes longer to digest.

My conclusion is that the views of those in George's post carry more weight due to relevance. Everyone else is free to draw their own conclusion.

[JeffHamm]

This lacks relevance. You should start a thread on my researching credentials.

We have the views of experts in the field, related specifically to Annie's last known meal (George's post).

And, we have your link which doesn't tell us what the 500 cases ate, and we know that while some food is easily digested most other food takes longer to digest.

My conclusion is that the views of those in George's post carry more weight due to relevance. Everyone else is free to draw their own conclusion.

Thanks for your opinion, but as you've shown no research to back it up, I'm afraid I find it uncompelling. You are the one that requested people cite peer reviewed research, with sample sizes, etc. I've done so, provided the citation so you could look it up if you so choose. And contrary to your 3 line, I indicated in this post what the food was.

Basically, though, how long food remains in the stomach is a key factor for us to consider. If food remains in the stomach for many hours (as the data shows it often does), then the fact that some food, regardless of what it was, still remained is not indicative of the time of death. The fact it was recognizable, though, does lend weight to it being less than 10 hours as the longer the food is in the stomach the less likely it is to be recognized. However, as you say, the current study is looking at meals of many different items. Eating a meal of one particular food item may allow for it to be recognizable for much longer, though you may note I have phrased that as a hypothesis and so you may wish to target your own research on that point in particular. Voicing a counter-hypothesis, while certainly possible (I could do that too, it may be that even single item meals follow the same decline in recognition as multi-item means, or even single item meals become unrecognizable more quickly over time - I think I've covered all possibilities there, I'll leave it to you to research that question).

The views I've presented are based upon actual research and data that you are more than welcome to read for yourself. I've met your request to present peer reviewed data relevant to the topic, with sample sizes and everything. As of yet, you've provided no research, no data, no sample sizes, etc and so I have no basis for changing the view that the above has lead me to.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Basically, given the information we have, I really don't think we have enough to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

- Jeff

Seeing as I started the thread, I think it's worth responding to this point.

A reasonable person wouldn't think any of these discussions are concluded, given we're lacking all of the pieces of information.

What's in my mind is, and I think this is the most that can be said: which of the scenarios put forward are most likely given the information at our disposal.

And, that's why I started the thread. At this point in time, my reasoning is that Annie's known last meal is one of the pieces of information that suggest she was murdered earlier than 5.30am. By discussing this in a thread, perhaps some information will come to light to reasonably suggest Annie's last known meal is not as important as I think it is.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks for your opinion, but as you've shown no research to back it up, I'm afraid I find it uncompelling. You are the one that requested people cite peer reviewed research, with sample sizes, etc. I've done so, provided the citation so you could look it up if you so choose. And contrary to your 3 line, I indicated in this post what the food was.

Basically, though, how long food remains in the stomach is a key factor for us to consider. If food remains in the stomach for many hours (as the data shows it often does), then the fact that some food, regardless of what it was, still remained is not indicative of the time of death. The fact it was recognizable, though, does lend weight to it being less than 10 hours as the longer the food is in the stomach the less likely it is to be recognized. However, as you say, the current study is looking at meals of many different items. Eating a meal of one particular food item may allow for it to be recognizable for much longer, though you may note I have phrased that as a hypothesis and so you may wish to target your own research on that point in particular. Voicing a counter-hypothesis, while certainly possible (I could do that too, it may be that even single item meals follow the same decline in recognition as multi-item means, or even single item meals become unrecognizable more quickly over time - I think I've covered all possibilities there, I'll leave it to you to research that question).

The views I've presented are based upon actual research and data that you are more than welcome to read for yourself. I've met your request to present peer reviewed data relevant to the topic, with sample sizes and everything. As of yet, you've provided no research, no data, no sample sizes, etc and so I have no basis for changing the view that the above has lead me to.

- Jeff

As I've said, for your information to be relevant we need to know how many of the 500 cases ate potatoes given that this is an easily digested food and most other food isn't

I don't want to labour this point as we're about to go down the road of the Richardson thread which became a mess.

In the event you can answer the question I've posed in this post, then I'm all ears and will have a good read of what you've posted.

In the event you can't, then let's agree to disagree on the relevance of your links.

[Aethelwulf]

As I've said, for your information to be relevant we need to know how many of the 500 cases ate potatoes given that this is an easily digested food and most other food isn't

I don't want to labour this point as we're about to go down the road of the Richardson thread which became a mess.

In the event you can answer the question I've posed in this post, then I'm all ears and will have a good read of what you've posted.

In the event you can't, then let's agree to disagree on the relevance of your links.

you're being ridiculous and pedantic. jeff has given perfectly sound data that fits the bill and you just don't like the answers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

you're being ridiculous and pedantic. jeff has given perfectly sound data that fits the bill and you just don't like the answers.

It’s sadly par for the course lately Wulf. Fixed idea first, discard evidence against it, discredit witnesses that contradict it, make impossible demands for evidence that can’t exist.

If Jeff found that 25% of the samples were of people who had just eaten potatoes it wouldn’t be enough, if he then found that it was actually 50% potato eaters it wouldn’t be enough! All Jeff now has to do is find the scientist who conducted research on digestion using people that subsisted only on potatoes! Perhaps a collection of 19th century Irish peasant farmers? Then he’d want it narrowed down to all women. Then all women in their 40’s. Then all women in their 40’s with the initials AC..