"Murder...!" cry

[Sam Flynn]

Is that because it would have been digested to the point it would be hard to recognise as fish, or because most of it would have already left the stomach?

A bit of both, Josh, although primarily the former: digestion to the point of being difficult to recognise.

[Sam Flynn]

So, if the cry indicates the beginning of the assault, then 2 hours earlier she ate?

That's what I'd suggest, Jon.

[Joshua Rogan]

Naaah. Too early. There would have been precious little evidence of fish in her stomach if it had been ingested 4 or so hours before her death.

Is that because it would have been digested to the point it would be hard to recognise as fish (except perhaps by smell), or because most of it would have already left the stomach?

BTW, If anyone's brave enough to make themselves sick after two hours of eating a modest portion of fish, and examining what gets chucked up, there's an experiment going begging here.

I would have given that a try, but I've just realised I don't eat fish!

[Wickerman]

The point is that, if the cry of "Murder!" indeed pointes her approximate time of death, we can work backwards, using the presence of recognisable fish in the stomach to work out roughly when she ate it. I'd suggest that this would have been within 2 hours of the cry of "Murder!" itself.

Ok, and Lewis says she heard the cry "a little before 4:00", Prater is less sure, "sometime between 3:30-4:00, or a little after".

So, if the cry indicates the beginning of the assault, then 2 hours earlier she ate?
So she ate at 2:00 am., after Blotchy but before she met Hutchinson. Maybe that is why she was in Commercial street at 2:00, she had just come from the chippy?

[Sam Flynn]

The point is that, if the cry of "Murder!" indeed pointes her approximate time of death...

... "pointes" isn't a ballet reference, but an amalgam of "points to" and "indicates" which ended up as a typo

[Wickerman]

Problem is we have no idea when she ate it.

Or

Where she got it.

I'd expect the police looked into it, but no idea if they found out.

Any doctor knows it is impossible to calculate a time of death by digestion without being given a 'time of consumption' for the food.
The fact Bond was able to provide an estimate indicates he had been given something to work with, be it right or wrong is another matter.
That suggests to me the police did find out, or at least came up with a time to give the doctor.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe blotchy treated Mary to some fish and chips on the way home.
Naaah. Too boring.

Naaah. Too early. There would have been precious little evidence of fish in her stomach if it had been ingested 4 or so hours before her death.

BTW, If anyone's brave enough to make themselves sick after two hours of eating a modest portion of fish, and examining what gets chucked up, there's an experiment going begging here.

[Sam Flynn]

Problem is we have no idea when she ate it.

The point is that, if the cry of "Murder!" indeed pointes her approximate time of death, we can work backwards, using the presence of recognisable fish in the stomach to work out roughly when she ate it. I'd suggest that this would have been within 2 hours of the cry of "Murder!" itself.

[GUT]

Problem is we have no idea when she ate it.

Or

Where she got it.

I'd expect the police looked into it, but no idea if they found out.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe blotchy treated Mary to some fish and chips on the way home.
Naaah. Too boring.

Lets dance. Lol!

[Robert St Devil]

But it could easily have been 12:00 AM - 2 AM. And how do we know Kelly did not have the fish inside her room making going out unnecessary?

the only person (i see) bringing fish to Mary,s apartment is joe barnett. hanbury street is described as a refuse of newspapers discarded by patrons as they exited one of the many fried fish shops. this... along with ,,baked potato cans,,(?). this journalist finds it remarkable that these whitechapel residents, with their half-penny each supper of fish & potatos, have a culture of eating & drinking in ,,the thoroughfares,,. it,s not definitive but it supports the suggestion that mary ventured out for a supper with penny in hand as was her habit. why no one recalls seeing a young, ginger-haired girl ,strolling about, is beyond me?

[Wickerman]

....there was no indication Kelly left.

I'm not sure what indication you expect.
The only indication we have that Kelly was out at 10:00 Thursday night is, that people said so.
The only indication we have that Kelly was out around midnight is, because people said so.
Well, people also said she was out between 2:00 and 3:00 am.

If the opinion of people is good enough before midnight, then why isn't it good enough after midnight?

The mystery is of your own making.

[Sam Flynn]

Most likely it was an intruder.

Comparatively the least likely option, I'd say.

[Sam Flynn]

But it could easily have been 12:00 AM - 2 AM.

I'd suggest no earlier than 2AM. Assuming the cry of "Murder" at around 4AM was significant, her eating the fish some four hours earlier is, I'd suggest, very unlikely.

And how do we know Kelly did not have the fish inside her room making going out unnecessary?

So her last meal was cold fish? Possibly, but what's more likely: that she ate cold fish at ~2AM, or that she ventured out at approx the same time - possibly with the money obtained from her last client - to buy herself a modest, but at least warm, meal?

[Varqm]

I believe it would have been in the interest of the killer not to have any of the women make any noise,it would wake up/alert people.In Mitre Square,even with several people that could have heard,they heard nothing.In Kelly's room the client/killer had ample time to position himself not to let Kelly cry.Bagster's and Bond's report does not preclude an intruder or a client.The lurking man was ,to me,most likely not an innocent bystander,there was no indication Kelly left.Most likely it was an intruder.
But the killer could have fumbled.In Mitre square he did not.