"Murder...!" cry

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.