"Murder...!" cry

[Sam Flynn]

But Gareth, on what grounds can we determine if this sketch was superior, when we do not know what the true layout was?

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

This all sounds right. I remember looking into this with the Stride murder. The comment was made that no grape 'flesh' was found in her stomach. As that is 90+ or more, % water, and the autopsy was only 30 some hours after her death, then of course any grape 'flesh' would have been dissolved.
The stomach acid continues to break food down long after death. No more digestive acid is produced after death, but that which exists in the stomach continues to do its job.
The same with Kelly, and boiled fish breaks down easier than raw fish.

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

Yes, she likely ate before the encounter with Hutchinson, possibly on the proceeds obtained from Blotchy, or even in the company of Blotchy.
Maybe Blotchy thought 'she can't sing and eat at the same time', his way of shutting her up.

[Wickerman]

Indeed, Jon. But, as I say, the Reynolds News drawing seems to be superior to the others in many ways, and looks to be particularly well-observed. If it had been drawn from a verbal description, that doesn't negate the possibility that the person providing the description was himself a good witness, and that his testimony was faithfully reconstructed by the artist.

But Gareth, on what grounds can we determine if this sketch was superior, when we do not know what the true layout was?

The point made by Robert was the proximity of her shoes to the fire, but they are not close to the fire, and neither are the clothes.

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

[Sam Flynn]

On digestion, I'm too impatient for Sams comments ...

"Gastric emptying is slow during sleep but the REM sleep is associated with faster gastric emptying. ...

So, sidestepping the medical narrative, it does slow during sleep.

What your source no doubt correctly describes is gastric emptying, but that's not the same as food being broken down by digestive juices. Digestion isn't the same as food being passed along the alimentary canal, although colloquially it's often confused. "Sit down for an hour after your dinner before going out to play", my grandmother would say, "to give your food time to digest"... bless her!

[Sam Flynn]

There is something like 5 or 6 sketches of Kelly's room, all different, suggestive of being created from verbal descriptions rather than an eyewitness.

Indeed, Jon. But, as I say, the Reynolds News drawing seems to be superior to the others in many ways, and looks to be particularly well-observed. If it had been drawn from a verbal description, that doesn't negate the possibility that the person providing the description was himself a good witness, and that his testimony was faithfully reconstructed by the artist.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, if she slept after eating and singing until sometime after 1am, then wouldn't her digestive system slow? Wouldn't a meal taken before 1:30 still be "partially" digested at 3:45am if she had been asleep?

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.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for the advice Jon, but Ive read many books specifically on the conditions within the East End,

Then there is no need to continue with this debate then.

...and I can say that its rather unusual to have a single female as the sole occupant when soliciting is the sole occupation to get a room in her own name.

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.

This is not a lodging house scenario as you've portrayed it, its a private room.

The people are all the same, when there are no rooms left to rent they turn to a lodging-house, or workhouse, or 'walk the streets'.
There is no difference between them, the customs they adhere to they take everywhere they go. They cannot trust anyone.

Tenanted rooms were left unlocked during the day, there was nothing to steal. Doors were only locked at night, and that was for personal safety.
People like Kelly, Prater, Cox, Eddowes, Nichols, Chapman, carried their possessions with them. All the clothes they owned they wore on their backs.

Especially in November, cold and blustery, with two big holes in her windows. That room was cold, unless you think she burned clothing to try stay warm. Material doesn't provide heat, it just flares up and dies down, so no-one burns clothing to stay warm - you wear it, not burn it!!!

The crux is that she was in fact undressed for bed, so your objection stems from the fact that you think she was entertaining a client after 1:30am, something which is not supported by the condition of the room at that time,...silent and dark,...

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?

......and something which could only be accurate if we believe witnesses who we have no proof knew Mary Kelly either by sight or by name before this event.

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

I use the witnesses that did in fact know her, one that passed her very room a few times that night....even after 1:30am. She didn't see Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday night.

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.

One who claimed knew her was eventually discredited,...

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.

...and another was warned at the Inquest that her statement did not agree with the others given, by witnesses like Mary Ann Cox.

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

[Michael W Richards]

On digestion, I'm too impatient for Sams comments ...

"Gastric emptying is slow during sleep but the REM sleep is associated with faster gastric emptying. During the night we have a more regular intestinal motility than during the day. During sleep, phase II of the migrating motor complex cycle is virtually absent, both during diurnal or nocturnal sleep. The nocturnal velocity of migrating motor complex propagation in the proximal small bowel is slower than the diurnal velocity. The colon has a decrease in tonus and contractions. The anal canal pressure is lower and rectum activity is higher during sleep than during the awake state, but the anal pressure is still higher than the rectum pressure and the rectum contractions are most frequently retrograde."

So, sidestepping the medical narrative, it does slow during sleep.

[Wickerman]

In mitigation, the Reynolds drawing looks to be very well-observed, and smacks of authenticity. The one above looks decidedly generic to the point of being made up... unless that copper really was sodomising the photographer.

There is something like 5 or 6 sketches of Kelly's room, all different, suggestive of being created from verbal descriptions rather than an eyewitness.

[Michael W Richards]

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).

Sam, if she slept after eating and singing until sometime after 1am, then wouldn't her digestive system slow? Wouldn't a meal taken before 1:30 still be "partially" digested at 3:45am if she had been asleep?

[Michael W Richards]

Mrs Prater.
-I lay down on the bed at 1.30, in my clothes. I fell asleep directly,

Mrs Cox.
-I laid on the bed in my clothes, but did not sleep.....
-I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder,".....
(if she didn't hear the scream - she fell asleep)

Sarah Lewis.
- I fell asleep in the chair, I woke at half-past three.

Michael, by far the majority of the poor who lived in hovels like those in Millers Court slept on the floor, in their clothes. Those who had chairs slept on them, often leaning over on a table. When the tenant had a bed, which was in many cases only a frame with a well worn mattress, the family would huddle up on the bed to keep warm - all fully clothed as bed sheets were a luxury to many.

In Lodging-houses those who rented a bed wouldn't dare undress, if they did someone would pinch their clothes in the night. Those who couldn't afford a bed slept on a bench with their arms hanging over a rope, dozens of men sat side-by-side, all fully clothed.

Regardless what your living conditions were, the poor and dossers alike were accustomed to keeping their clothes on, day and night.

You might benefit from a few good books that explain just how bad the living conditions were for people of the East End in this period. Very few had a room to themselves, in many cases more than one family shared a 10 x 10 ft room, most sleeping on the floor - all fully clothed.

This is how LUDICROUS it was in the real world, a touch of reality wouldn't go amiss with you Michael.
Read some books....

Thanks for the advice Jon, but Ive read many books specifically on the conditions within the East End, and I can say that its rather unusual to have a single female as the sole occupant when soliciting is the sole occupation to get a room in her own name. This is not a lodging house scenario as you've portrayed it, its a private room.

The crux is that she was in fact undressed for bed, so your objection stems from the fact that you think she was entertaining a client after 1:30am, something which is not supported by the condition of the room at that time,...silent and dark, and something which could only be accurate if we believe witnesses who we have no proof knew Mary Kelly either by sight or by name before this event. I use the witnesses that did in fact know her, one that passed her very room a few times that night....even after 1:30am. She didn't see Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday night.

One who claimed knew her was eventually discredited, and another was warned at the Inquest that her statement did not agree with the others given, by witnesses like Mary Ann Cox.

[Sam Flynn]

The floorboards run in the opposite direction in this sketch.
Perhaps we should not put much faith in the accuracy of every detail.


Courtesy of Stewart Evans.

In mitigation, the Reynolds drawing looks to be very well-observed, and smacks of authenticity. The one above looks decidedly generic to the point of being made up... unless that copper really was sodomising the photographer.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree.The last time known of Kelly is she was in her room.Unless otherwise proven she stayed.There was no noise heard or any indication that Kelly went out exists

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).

[Wickerman]

Mrs Prater.
-I lay down on the bed at 1.30, in my clothes. I fell asleep directly,

Mrs Cox.
-I laid on the bed in my clothes, but did not sleep.....
-I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder,".....
(if she didn't hear the scream - she fell asleep)

Sarah Lewis.
- I fell asleep in the chair, I woke at half-past three.

Michael, by far the majority of the poor who lived in hovels like those in Millers Court slept on the floor, in their clothes. Those who had chairs slept on them, often leaning over on a table. When the tenant had a bed, which was in many cases only a frame with a well worn mattress, the family would huddle up on the bed to keep warm - all fully clothed as bed sheets were a luxury to many.

In Lodging-houses those who rented a bed wouldn't dare undress, if they did someone would pinch their clothes in the night. Those who couldn't afford a bed slept on a bench with their arms hanging over a rope, dozens of men sat side-by-side, all fully clothed.

Regardless what your living conditions were, the poor and dossers alike were accustomed to keeping their clothes on, day and night.

You might benefit from a few good books that explain just how bad the living conditions were for people of the East End in this period. Very few had a room to themselves, in many cases more than one family shared a 10 x 10 ft room, most sleeping on the floor - all fully clothed.

This is how LUDICROUS it was in the real world, a touch of reality wouldn't go amiss with you Michael.
Read some books....

[Robert]

Of course the sketches may be inaccurate. But if we say that the killer threw the clothes on the fire, because he was cold, then why did he not throw Kelly's clothes on too, if they were dry. He may have done, but I doubt it.