Annie's last meal

[Fleetwood Mac]

Please tell us all where Dr. Phillips said that he found potatoes in Annie’s stomach.

If it wasn't potatoes then Annie ate again after 1.45am, see the OP and post 100 for the questions flowing from this.

[etenguy]

See George's post: experts in the field considered a meal of potatoes and based on their conclusion Annie would have eaten again in order for a 5.30am TOD to fit.

If you accept this, then refer to post 100.

Not necessarily, we do not know what Annie ate nor at what time. Did she have anything to eat before the potato at 1.45am - perhaps something that takes longer to digest than a potato? Did the food found in her stomach include potatoes? Did she eat anything while trolling the streets looking for a client, either that she had on or bought from one of the shops? We simply do not know. Therefore we have no basis from which to even try to estimate time of death from digestion.

[DJA]

Bob Dylan - Blowin' in the Wind (Official Audio) - YouTube

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not necessarily, we do not know what Annie ate nor at what time. Did she have anything to eat before the potato at 1.45am - perhaps something that takes longer to digest than a potato? Did the food found in her stomach include potatoes? Did she eat anything while trolling the streets looking for a client, either that she had on or bought from one of the shops? We simply do not know. Therefore we have no basis from which to even try to estimate time of death from digestion.

That's fine. This thread wasn't intended for "we simply do not know".

I was asking for something which allows us to make a connection, e.g. something in a witness statement or some such which gives a bit of information where you can think: "ah, that's what Annie reasonably could have done".

[GBinOz]

Oh, that is a good question. I thought Dr. Phillips had mentioned that it was potatoes, but we may know that she had eaten potatoes because of the inquest witness testimony, not because of Dr. Phillips medical examination.

Which, according to some, means we cannot presume she had only eaten potatoes, but may also have had fish, and beef, and pork, and pheasant too and the witness lied to prevent anyone from knowing how high on the hog they lived in Whitechapel (witnesses are not to be relied upon after all).

Seriously, it may be then, that unrecognizable food was found in her stomach, and that tends to (slightly) favor longer PMI. Again, the data shows that food remains in the stomach for long periods of time, so we're just not going to be able to differentiate 50 minutes here.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

You're absolutely right. A gotcha moment . The only evidence referring to potatoes is at the inquest regarding what she was eating before she left the lodging house. Baked potato vendors were common at the time, and a potato sold for one penny each, so that was probably the cheapest food available for the unfortunates. Never the less, that is not proof that there were not pheasants that were past their use by date being offered at bargain basement prices.

It is a shame that the components of stomach contents were not disclosed, as they were for Stride and Kelly. It's almost like there is a conspiracy to deny us the information needed for decision making (and point scoring ).

Best regards, George

[Indian Harry]

We know her stomach didn't contain carrots... because that would have really put the focus on John Richardson.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You're absolutely right. A gotcha moment . The only evidence referring to potatoes is at the inquest regarding what she was eating before she left the lodging house. Baked potato vendors were common at the time, and a potato sold for one penny each, so that was probably the cheapest food available for the unfortunates. Never the less, that is not proof that there were not pheasants that were past their use by date being offered at bargain basement prices.

It is a shame that the components of stomach contents were not disclosed, as they were for Stride and Kelly. It's almost like there is a conspiracy to deny us the information needed for decision making (and point scoring ).

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Who said the pheasants were passed their use by date?

Seriously though, the "potatoes" may have been what was left from a meal of fish and chips (i.e. as per Kelly, who appears to have eat fish and potatoes - which I presume refers to fish and chips). Fatty foods, like chips, and proteins, fish, are foods that tend to take longer to process, though I think that refers to time in the intestines rather than time remaining in the stomach. I'm not entirely sure what influences "gastric emptying times", though the more liquid the food I believe the faster it empties. Mashed potatoes, for example, would probably tend to move on more quickly as it's already in a mushy consistency, making it easier for the stomach muscles to work it out into the intestines, while poorly chewed chunks of meat will require more time for the stomach acids to break it down and get it moving along. Greasy foods, like chips, or deep friend fish, will likewise take longer for the acids to work on, and so will tend to last a bit longer.

We know Annie was eating potatoes. Given we know she was eating potatoes, it seems unlikely it was a handful of mash. So either a meal of roasted potatoes, or a jacket potato, or chips. Those will all tend to last a bit longer than mash in the stomach, and the last of those may have been her finishing up a meal of fish and chips as per Kelly (so we know it's not a meal out of consideration).

To connect the potatoes we know she ate at 1:45 to the food remaining in her stomach that Dr. Phillips mentions is a huge leap in the chain of evidence. Sure, it's a working hypothesis, but we do not know that Dr. Phillips' food was potatoes. If it was anything else, then Annie ate something else, for which we have no evidence to place it in time (so in that very real possibility, she either ate something before or after 1:45 that was still remaining in her stomach, meaning debating potatoes as a specific item is a red herring - yes, intentional allusion to fish and chips )

It's not that this is an area unworthy of discussion, and I hope that's not what I'm sounding like suggesting. I do, however, for these reasons think we have too little information to work with if we see the purpose as working out a pre/post 4:30 ToD. I don't think we can do that. What I do think it is good for is to highlight the complexities involved, so that we all gain a greater appreciation for how tenuous many of our "conclusions" are - that it might be wise for us to go back and re-evaluate how and why we strongly support one or the other.

I, for example, think the ToD around 5:25 is the most supported estimate, as it does not conflict with any of the information (medical and/or witnesses) we have given the margins of errors associated with those statements. At the same time, I don't think the information we have is so solid that we should go so far as to say it is therefore proven that is the ToD. I just think it is the most strongly supported hypothesis, and that because a pre-4:30 hypothesis requires the unsubstantiated rejection of the witness statements given that to me the arguments to do so all appear to be of the "this sounds unlikely to me" sort, rather than "this is impossible", or "the difference between X and Y is such that one of them must be wrong as the difference is too big to simply be attributed to a margin of error".

I rate hypotheses on the basis of how much evidence it can account for, and a ToD around 5:25 can account for all of it. It fits with the error margins associated with Dr. Phillips ToD statement (particularly when one takes his qualifying statement into account), it fits with finding some food in her stomach (but I think the margin of error is so wide on that it just really tells us she ate at some point before she was killed), and it fits with all the witness statements (though admittedly, I think the fact it can account for Long to be a bit ho-hum as I tend not to worry too much about her as I'm very sceptical as to her sighting; I think she gave her evidence in good faith though, but she could very easily have seen someone else). It fits with the door being found open, it fits with the finding of the legging's spring, and there's even a press report that Wickerman posted of a man seen running in the area (apparently of a description that could be the "Bethnal Green Botherer", but I don't know where that came from and want to see the full context of that information - it's a press report somewhere, not an inquest report, so again, a source to be cautious with).

Anyway, this is why I think delving into "stomach content analysis" is just not capable of informing us as to the ToD with any degree of certainty. It is highly variable (so wide margins of error), and we lack fundamentally important information upon which to even start any type of consideration. Sure, we could fill in that information with some assumptions, but those assumptions will drive the eventual conclusion. If I fill in "her meal of potatos" with "was mashed potatoes", then I can push the evidence towards as early as I want, particularly if I claim mash will empty in 20 minutes (and don't provide you with any research on that). If I change her potatos to "fish and chips" I can push it later. If I add it she may have eaten more later, I can push it later, and if I add in "and she didn't eat again" then I can argue for earlier. None of these conclusions is evidence driven, they are assumption driven. That alone is marking out what I mean by "margins of error", we have to consider all of these possibilities, note how wide we can push things, and then conclude "so it could have been between the earliest and latest times", by which point we're left with a window that spans "from 1:45 until found dead", which got us nowhere.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Who said the pheasants were passed their use by date?

Seriously though, the "potatoes" may have been what was left from a meal of fish and chips (i.e. as per Kelly, who appears to have eat fish and potatoes - which I presume refers to fish and chips). Fatty foods, like chips, and proteins, fish, are foods that tend to take longer to process, though I think that refers to time in the intestines rather than time remaining in the stomach. I'm not entirely sure what influences "gastric emptying times", though the more liquid the food I believe the faster it empties. Mashed potatoes, for example, would probably tend to move on more quickly as it's already in a mushy consistency, making it easier for the stomach muscles to work it out into the intestines, while poorly chewed chunks of meat will require more time for the stomach acids to break it down and get it moving along. Greasy foods, like chips, or deep friend fish, will likewise take longer for the acids to work on, and so will tend to last a bit longer.

We know Annie was eating potatoes. Given we know she was eating potatoes, it seems unlikely it was a handful of mash. So either a meal of roasted potatoes, or a jacket potato, or chips. Those will all tend to last a bit longer than mash in the stomach, and the last of those may have been her finishing up a meal of fish and chips as per Kelly (so we know it's not a meal out of consideration).

To connect the potatoes we know she ate at 1:45 to the food remaining in her stomach that Dr. Phillips mentions is a huge leap in the chain of evidence. Sure, it's a working hypothesis, but we do not know that Dr. Phillips' food was potatoes. If it was anything else, then Annie ate something else, for which we have no evidence to place it in time (so in that very real possibility, she either ate something before or after 1:45 that was still remaining in her stomach, meaning debating potatoes as a specific item is a red herring - yes, intentional allusion to fish and chips )

It's not that this is an area unworthy of discussion, and I hope that's not what I'm sounding like suggesting. I do, however, for these reasons think we have too little information to work with if we see the purpose as working out a pre/post 4:30 ToD. I don't think we can do that. What I do think it is good for is to highlight the complexities involved, so that we all gain a greater appreciation for how tenuous many of our "conclusions" are - that it might be wise for us to go back and re-evaluate how and why we strongly support one or the other.

I, for example, think the ToD around 5:25 is the most supported estimate, as it does not conflict with any of the information (medical and/or witnesses) we have given the margins of errors associated with those statements. At the same time, I don't think the information we have is so solid that we should go so far as to say it is therefore proven that is the ToD. I just think it is the most strongly supported hypothesis, and that because a pre-4:30 hypothesis requires the unsubstantiated rejection of the witness statements given that to me the arguments to do so all appear to be of the "this sounds unlikely to me" sort, rather than "this is impossible", or "the difference between X and Y is such that one of them must be wrong as the difference is too big to simply be attributed to a margin of error".

I rate hypotheses on the basis of how much evidence it can account for, and a ToD around 5:25 can account for all of it. It fits with the error margins associated with Dr. Phillips ToD statement (particularly when one takes his qualifying statement into account), it fits with finding some food in her stomach (but I think the margin of error is so wide on that it just really tells us she ate at some point before she was killed), and it fits with all the witness statements (though admittedly, I think the fact it can account for Long to be a bit ho-hum as I tend not to worry too much about her as I'm very sceptical as to her sighting; I think she gave her evidence in good faith though, but she could very easily have seen someone else). It fits with the door being found open, it fits with the finding of the legging's spring, and there's even a press report that Wickerman posted of a man seen running in the area (apparently of a description that could be the "Bethnal Green Botherer", but I don't know where that came from and want to see the full context of that information - it's a press report somewhere, not an inquest report, so again, a source to be cautious with).

Anyway, this is why I think delving into "stomach content analysis" is just not capable of informing us as to the ToD with any degree of certainty. It is highly variable (so wide margins of error), and we lack fundamentally important information upon which to even start any type of consideration. Sure, we could fill in that information with some assumptions, but those assumptions will drive the eventual conclusion. If I fill in "her meal of potatos" with "was mashed potatoes", then I can push the evidence towards as early as I want, particularly if I claim mash will empty in 20 minutes (and don't provide you with any research on that). If I change her potatos to "fish and chips" I can push it later. If I add it she may have eaten more later, I can push it later, and if I add in "and she didn't eat again" then I can argue for earlier. None of these conclusions is evidence driven, they are assumption driven. That alone is marking out what I mean by "margins of error", we have to consider all of these possibilities, note how wide we can push things, and then conclude "so it could have been between the earliest and latest times", by which point we're left with a window that spans "from 1:45 until found dead", which got us nowhere.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree with almost all your arguments. The terrible ifs accumulate. I acknowledge that the 5:30 time is the majority view, but I tend to subscribe to Mark Twain's "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform, pause or reflect".

Having read this: https://www.geriwalton.com/baked-potato-sellers/ I would tend to put my money on Baked, but have no argument with any other cooked form. I think you have drawn an appropriate conclusion that, if we make allowances for all the possible variations such as meal size, content, second meal etc, there are too many technical variables to derive a result of the required accuracy. It then comes down to each individual's deliberations on the likelihood of each event. Annie was seen eating potatoes, plural. As they were the cheapest food available I think it fair to assume that she depleted her cash in buying them, and perhaps some beer if she bought them from Ringers. She asked that her bed be kept, and I imagine it would be not received well if a bed was kept for a no show. She was very confident of attracting a client. I would assume this confidence being gained from previous experience, so I would think that she intended to devote any money procured to a bed rather than another meal, so I think that Jack was her first customer. If she didn't find a customer, I think that she would have called no joy and decided to sleep rough long before 5:30 AM. The "murdered while sleeping rough" option is a possibility, but there are too many variables to even think about.

That's where I'm at on this component at this time, and my assessment of all the components leads me to lean toward the earlier ToD. Like you, I'm not going to stamp my feet and claim that I am right and everyone else is wrong, or that there is an overwhelming Mount Everest of evidence against all but my opinion, or that anyone that disagrees is illiterate with no comprehension of the English language. I am quite happy for members to hold opposing viewpoints (even if they are wrong ).

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

We know her stomach didn't contain carrots... because that would have really put the focus on John Richardson.

Good one Indian Harry!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I agree with almost all your arguments. The terrible ifs accumulate. I acknowledge that the 5:30 time is the majority view, but I tend to subscribe to Mark Twain's "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform, pause or reflect".

Having read this: https://www.geriwalton.com/baked-potato-sellers/ I would tend to put my money on Baked, but have no argument with any other cooked form. I think you have drawn an appropriate conclusion that, if we make allowances for all the possible variations such as meal size, content, second meal etc, there are too many technical variables to derive a result of the required accuracy. It then comes down to each individual's deliberations on the likelihood of each event. Annie was seen eating potatoes, plural. As they were the cheapest food available I think it fair to assume that she depleted her cash in buying them, and perhaps some beer if she bought them from Ringers. She asked that her bed be kept, and I imagine it would be not received well if a bed was kept for a no show. She was very confident of attracting a client. I would assume this confidence being gained from previous experience, so I would think that she intended to devote any money procured to a bed rather than another meal, so I think that Jack was her first customer. If she didn't find a customer, I think that she would have called no joy and decided to sleep rough long before 5:30 AM. The "murdered while sleeping rough" option is a possibility, but there are too many variables to even think about.

That's where I'm at on this component at this time, and my assessment of all the components leads me to lean toward the earlier ToD. Like you, I'm not going to stamp my feet and claim that I am right and everyone else is wrong, or that there is an overwhelming Mount Everest of evidence against all but my opinion, or that anyone that disagrees is illiterate with no comprehension of the English language. I am quite happy for members to hold opposing viewpoints (even if they are wrong ).

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yah, I know you consider both and aren't insistent, even if you lean in the opposite direction to myself. I sort of like your suggestion she may have slept rough for the missing hours, though I don't think in the backyard of #29 would be where she slept if she did. But, that got me to wondering if, perhaps, we need to consider mild hypothermia if that is what she did. Also, we would need to then consider if sleep influences the rate at which food exits the stomach, and all sorts of additional possibilities.

As you say, the terrible "if's" grow the more things get looked at, but each one of those if's just increases the margins of errors as we have to consider all the possible realities, not just pick the one we like. That makes it harder and harder to nail anything down for certain, and that I think is the lesson here.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the event it wasn't potatoes in Annie's stomach, then Annie ate again before she was murdered.

A reminder of the OP for anyone still interested and able to provide a reasonable solution:

My belief is that around 3am the last people are coming in off the streets to go to bed (where they have a bed to go to). This is the case in the Mary witness statements, and whether or not you believe he was there, George Hutchinson has in his mind that after 2am it's quietish. I can't remember which of the witnesses said this in Mary's case, but one of the women who lived in Miller's Court said something like McCarthy's shop could be open until 3am. I think we're getting to the general, approximate time where there is no market for food because the vast majority of people are off the streets.

I'm looking at this and I'm thinking: Annie finished eating approx. 1.45am, she leaves her lodging house to find her doss money and tells them not to let her bed, in the event she gets a client who isn't her murderer, before 3am, does she use that money to buy food or go back to her lodging house? In my mind, given that she has eaten around an hour previously, she goes back to her lodging house. The conclusion being that eating again before 3am is unreasonable, and after 3am there doesn't appear to be a market for shops selling food being open.

Assuming the TOD is approx. 5.30am, then she will have eaten again somewhere around 4.15am (in the absence of science to suggest otherwise). From where exactly does she get this food and why, given provision of food has never been prerequisite for street prostitution?

I appreciate there are thousands of possibilities, but what I'm interested in is something reasonable. I'm just not seeing it.

As an amendment to the OP, it is quite correct that in the event she ate again then we don't know what that meal was and it follows the time to digest. Assuming it wasn't potatoes but rather food more difficult to digest, then the suggestion is that Annie ate again closer to when she was seen eating potatoes.

Regardless, the question remains: from where did she get this food and why given the extract from the OP in this post?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know her stomach didn't contain carrots... because that would have really put the focus on John Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the event it wasn't potatoes in Annie's stomach, then Annie ate again before she was murdered.

A reminder of the OP for anyone still interested and able to provide a reasonable solution:

My belief is that around 3am the last people are coming in off the streets to go to bed (where they have a bed to go to). This is the case in the Mary witness statements, and whether or not you believe he was there, George Hutchinson has in his mind that after 2am it's quietish. I can't remember which of the witnesses said this in Mary's case, but one of the women who lived in Miller's Court said something like McCarthy's shop could be open until 3am. I think we're getting to the general, approximate time where there is no market for food because the vast majority of people are off the streets.

I'm looking at this and I'm thinking: Annie finished eating approx. 1.45am, she leaves her lodging house to find her doss money and tells them not to let her bed, in the event she gets a client who isn't her murderer, before 3am, does she use that money to buy food or go back to her lodging house? In my mind, given that she has eaten around an hour previously, she goes back to her lodging house. The conclusion being that eating again before 3am is unreasonable, and after 3am there doesn't appear to be a market for shops selling food being open.

Assuming the TOD is approx. 5.30am, then she will have eaten again somewhere around 4.15am (in the absence of science to suggest otherwise). From where exactly does she get this food and why, given provision of food has never been prerequisite for street prostitution?

I appreciate there are thousands of possibilities, but what I'm interested in is something reasonable. I'm just not seeing it.

As an amendment to the OP, it is quite correct that in the event she ate again then we don't know what that meal was and it follows the time to digest. Assuming it wasn't potatoes but rather food more difficult to digest, then the suggestion is that Annie ate again closer to when she was seen eating potatoes.

Regardless, the question remains: from where did she get this food and why given the extract from the OP in this post?

I don’t know why you’ve repeated the same post but ok.

You are asking the impossible. We can’t possibly know where she might have got food from and we will never know.

1. She might not have eaten all of her potatoes in the doss house. Someone of her level of poverty would have been unlikely to have thrown away food.

2. She might have found a potato In the street that had fallen off a cart.

3. She might have bumped into a friend on the street who shared some food with her.

4. She went to borrow some money. The person that she visited had no money to lend her but saw her circumstances and gave her some food.

[etenguy]

I don’t know why you’ve repeated the same post but ok.

You are asking the impossible. We can’t possibly know where she might have got food from and we will never know.

1. She might not have eaten all of her potatoes in the doss house. Someone of her level of poverty would have been unlikely to have thrown away food.

2. She might have found a potato In the street that had fallen off a cart.

3. She might have bumped into a friend on the street who shared some food with her.

4. She went to borrow some money. The person that she visited had no money to lend her but saw her circumstances and gave her some food.

Hi Herlock

Some interesting speculation, but we have no witnesses that might help us understand which if any of these scenarios are accurate.. The only post 1.45 witness of Annie's movements I am aware of is Long. who saw her at around 5.30 talking with a man. She makes no mention of Annie eating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Some interesting speculation, but we have no witnesses that might help us understand which if any of these scenarios are accurate.. The only post 1.45 witness of Annie's movements I am aware of is Long. who saw her at around 5.30 talking with a man. She makes no mention of Annie eating.

Hi Eten,

Exactly. This is why I’ve said that we just can’t advance on this subject. Far too many unknowns. And not just unknowns but things that we will never know.