"Murder...!" cry

[Varqm]

I totally agree, but given that fish is broken down comparatively rapidly in the stomach, the mere fact that it was partially digested - as opposed to completely "dissolved" - could indicate that the fish was eaten within a couple of hours of Kelly's being killed. If it had been eaten 3, 4, 5 hours before death, there would have been very little recognisable fish left in the stomach, if any at all.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for the info but it does not matter.We do not know how "partially digested".

I totally agree, but given that fish is broken down comparatively rapidly in the stomach, the mere fact that it was partially digested - as opposed to completely "dissolved" - could indicate that the fish was eaten within a couple of hours of Kelly's being killed. If it had been eaten 3, 4, 5 hours before death, there would have been very little recognisable fish left in the stomach, if any at all.

[Varqm]

There are no enzymes in the stomach that digest the starches that predominate in vegetarian diets, and the cellulose in plant cell walls are practically indigestible for humans. There are stomach enzymes that break down proteins/meat, however, and fish meat - by its somewhat diaphanous nature - gets broken down much more rapidly than most.

Thanks for the info but it does not matter.We do not know how "partially digested".These things are too technical,it must require tests on the body.It's hard to ascertain from reading alone,especially from 1888, and as such it cannot be pinpointed ,the best is range based,2-5 for ex.?.Even today,with access to the body,according to that link in the previous post,the forensic pathologist did not know if it was 2 or 3 AM.The Lechmere medical evidence also cannot be pinpointed to a 1-2 minutes and the killer only needed seconds to escape by the board school if he sensed Lechmere entering/walking Buck's row or even by something else,a sound for ex..I do not know why people even bother/pretend.

[Sam Flynn]

No it does not. It could be 4 hours.As a previous post suggested somebody ate a vegetarian diet at 10:00 PM. and his projected death was at 2:00-3:00 AM.

There are no enzymes in the stomach that digest the starches that predominate in vegetarian diets, and the cellulose in plant cell walls are practically indigestible for humans. There are stomach enzymes that break down proteins/meat, however, and fish meat - by its somewhat diaphanous nature - gets broken down much more rapidly than most.

[Varqm]

The partly-digested fish in her stomach might suggest that she went out to buy food within 2 hours of her death which, if the cry of "Murder!" was indeed Kelly's, would mean that she went out again some 2-3 hours after she was last seen in Miller's Court. Unless someone surprised her by bringing her an impromptu fish supper, I suppose.

Having said that, we don't hear of any fish bones being found on the premises; maybe they went unreported, maybe they ended up on the fire, or perhaps Kelly ate her last meal on the way back from the chippy (something I've done many times).

No it does not. It could be 4 hours.As a previous post suggested somebody ate a vegetarian diet at 10:00 PM. and his projected death was at 2:00-3:00 AM..
Which means if time of death is known it could be also traced back when he ate.But we do not know how "partially digested" and also how much food.Medical evidence is too technical.

[Wickerman]

Michael.
It will be nice the day you learn to use the quote feature.

So, to reply to your responses, in numerical order.

1) The name of the tenant is entered on McCarthy's register, and her rent book. This would establish a fact, so I'm ready when you're ready to produce either source.

2) So long as we read that Lewis & Kennedy arrived on Friday at different times, and spoke of different people, then logically they themselves are different women.

3) I thought you were going to tell me how Cox proved she knew Kelly?

4) To claim you have never seen anything to negate the "discredited" report is markedly untrue. You have been shown press reports concerning the police still looking for the Hutchinson suspect days after that bogus report from the Star. (So much for your "not discarding what doesn't fit").

5) You tried to claim "I didn't say that she was compared to Cox," yet your claim is written in plain English - "by witnesses like Mary Ann Cox."
What more is there to say....

Taking a stand against the current is understandable, I for one had stood for a 2-3 person Canonical Group at the most for over a decade. But I use real data, not imagined, and I don't discard what doesn't fit with my own preconceptions.

Real Data tells us Lewis arrived at 2:30, and Kennedy about 3:00.
Real Data has Lewis seeing two people outside the Britannia, and a loiterer in Dorset street, but Kennedy saw three people outside the Britannia, and no-one in Dorset Street.
[Clue!!! - at 2:30 Hutchinson was loitering in Dorset street, at 3:00 he had gone.]
Real Data provides at least two separate newspaper reports that the police are still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect DAYS after that bogus suggestion by the Star that he had been 'discredited'.
Not the first time the Star have been caught playing loose with the facts.

What seems to be a common phenomena is that some people try to project a higher opinion of themselves, than is observed by their peers.
When you do commit to using 'real data', there will be no need to claim this, as others will see it for themselves.

[Sam Flynn]

That's true Sam, but in context the silence and darkness is very possibly a sign that the evenings entertainment had ended.

Indeed, but what happened after Blotchy left?

There had been singing off and on for over an hour, ever since they arrived at the room, when that stopped, and the light went out, that could easily be a case of her, or they, bedding down.

That is, of course, a distinct possibility, and you may be right.

But... when did she eat that fish?

[Michael W Richards]

"Taking a stand against the current is understandable, I for one had stood for a 2-3 person Canonical Group at the most for over a decade. But I use real data, not imagined, and I don't discard what doesn't fit with my own preconceptions."

I have always admired the man who can poke a little fun at himself.

c.d.

I'm glad you like that cd, even though you are one that also imagines data, like Israel Schwartz actually having some value as a witness despite any evidence that his story was entered into the Inquest records in his absence. When I say I use evidence, in this case, it means who is actually on record for the Inquest statements. Or the imagined Ripper popping in between Israel and Louis's arrival. To name but 2 instances.

[Michael W Richards]

Elizabeth Prater only gives us a snapshot of when she entered Miller's Court and climbed the stairs... an instant covering, perhaps at most, a minute. An instant, furthermore, during which I'd suggest she had no particular reason to pay much attention to what was going in in Mary's room - assuming Kelly was stilll inside, of course. If Prater had reported hearing definite snores coming from No 13, we'd know for sure - but, alas, no snores were heard.

Be that as it may, there were many, many other minutes that would elapse after Prater retired to bed, during which she had even less reason to pay attention to Kelly's comings and goings.

That's true Sam, but in context the silence and darkness is very possibly a sign that the evenings entertainment had ended.

There had been singing off and on for over an hour, ever since they arrived at the room, when that stopped, and the light went out, that could easily be a case of her, or they, bedding down.

[Sam Flynn]

by EP's statement, it seems unlikely to me that she went out again.

Elizabeth Prater only gives us a snapshot of when she entered Miller's Court and climbed the stairs... an instant covering, perhaps at most, a minute. An instant, furthermore, during which I'd suggest she had no particular reason to pay much attention to what was going in in Mary's room - assuming Kelly was stilll inside, of course. If Prater had reported hearing definite snores coming from No 13, we'd know for sure - but, alas, no snores were heard.

Be that as it may, there were many, many other minutes that would elapse after Prater retired to bed, during which she had even less reason to pay attention to Kelly's comings and goings.

[c.d.]

"Taking a stand against the current is understandable, I for one had stood for a 2-3 person Canonical Group at the most for over a decade. But I use real data, not imagined, and I don't discard what doesn't fit with my own preconceptions."

I have always admired the man who can poke a little fun at himself.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Don't think so, Michael. Fish is rather easily broken down in the stomach, and I don't think that sleep would have retarded the process to that extent.

The breaking down of the fish would have continued for a while after death, as the digestive juices already secreted into the stomach wouldn't suddenly stop working when the brain died. Indeed, I'd suggest that the juices that had soaked into the mashed-up food before death would continue to work their magic for a little while after death also.

The amount of food ingested would also have relevance, in which context it's worth bearing in mind that that the portions of fish might not have been too generous in those days.

Taking all these factors into account, the suggested eat/death timeline of ~1AM to ~4AM - practically four hours - strikes me as rather long for fish to have sat in the stomach and still to have survived comparatively unscathed.

As I see it, a visit to the fish shop at around 2AM would seem to sit more easily with the evidence.

Actually it would be more like 12:30-4:30 I would think Sam, and Ive reviewed some other materials that do agree with a cessation of digestive processes based partly on organ blood flow. Although I have no real problem with someone bringing in food just before 4 either. I think she was murdered sometime soon after the "oh-murder cry". Since Mary Ann is still out on the street until 3am, and she is the only witness we can have some confidence would actually know Mary Kelly, and Marys room is in the same condition it was at 1:30.. by EP's statement, it seems unlikely to me that she went out again. Considering her condition and her entertaining, a nod off seems far more likely after Blotchy leaves. My contention is that Blotchy left when the singing stopped and the candle was doused.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps this is where you have adopted a false premise. Kelly did not get this room in her name, for herself. Barnett & Kelly moved in as a couple, he was the breadwinner, not Kelly.
Once Barnett left she had to make ends meet as best she could.

You may want to check your facts....again, the room was let to Mary Kelly, the fact that she moved in with Barnett is irrelevant to the lease name.

The room was silent and dark at 3:00 am, according to Cox. But, at 3:00 am Mrs Kennedy said Kelly was outside the Britannia with another man. So you have your answer to why it was silent and dark, you just choose to ignore it.Cherry picking?

The room was said to be dark and silent at 1:30, by Elizabeth Prater. As for Mrs Kennedy, when are you going to accept it was Sarah Lewis,...or do we all have to continue imaging a second witness with identical details?

How does anyone 'prove', to us, they knew Kelly?

Mary Ann Cox passed Marys door everytime she went in and out. Elizabeth Prater also said she knocked on Marys door that morning in a press statement, and lived in #26. To suggest they hadn't met is...well, I suppose normal for you.

How did Cox prove that she knew Kelly?
She tells us, but Hutchinson tells us he knew Kelly, so I guess he proved it too.

See previous answer

The discrediting never happened, another bogus claim by the Star. But, then for someone who chooses to believe in baseless accusations that does not matter. Just keep repeating the same old dogma rather than admit you are wrong.

You can decide its bogus if you want to, that's not a problem for me, its just that the press reported he was, and Ive never seen any information that negates that report. It was also within a week.

Maxwell was not compared to Cox, because Cox did not say Kelly was dead. Only the medical evidence suggested Maxwell was wrong, nothing else.

I didn't say that she was compared to Cox, I said that she was warned that her testimony didn't agree with evidence given....it does in no way limit that to the estimated TOD. Which is reasonable by the way.

Taking a stand against the current is understandable, I for one had stood for a 2-3 person Canonical Group at the most for over a decade. But I use real data, not imagined, and I don't discard what doesn't fit with my own preconceptions.

[Wickerman]

What is interesting is that the Reynolds sketch isn't depicting much of the body; instead, what we get is largely a room interior. Why waste valuable column inches with such a superficially mundane drawing, unless it were the "real deal"? That quirk alone may point to its authenticity.

More interestingly, the only part of the body the sketch does show are the lumps of flesh on the bedside table and, in comparison to both the Kelly crime-scene photographs, the artist does a remarkably good job of it.

This was a Sunday paper Gareth, Victorian sensibilities and all that.
If you look back at all the Reynolds News since August when the murders began. They didn't go in for gore or sensationalism with their art work.
This was possibly the closest they came to upsetting Londoners at their morning breakfast.

[Sam Flynn]

Did you notice that under that left side table, within the shadows, appears to be drawn a pool of something, liquid, blood, water?

It might just be a squiggle or, being lighter than the shadows, a bit of cloth. I'm sure the artist would have shaded it in more clearly if there had been a pool of dark liquid there.