Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.?

[Michael W Richards]

Would there be any irritation visible in or on the esophagus as a result of throwing up shortly before death?

[Abby Normal]

Does one empty the entire stomach contents when throwing up?

hi david
since mary Kelly said she was sick from drinking lets stick with throwing up from drinking. I know from personal experience that there are basically three types of throwing up caused by drinking:

1. Throwing up immediate from doing a shot, chugging a beer, etc. its immediate and does not seem to empty the entire contents. Usually just one "heave".

2. Throwing up from drinking too much in immediate aftermath. usually when one has just recently finished drinking and passed out or trying to go to sleep-getting "head spins". usually one or two heaves-probably empties the stomach, or most of it.

3. Throwing up from "alcohol poisoning". Its like food poisoning, and may not happen till one wakes up after heavy drinking. Multiple stomach heaves over the course of a couple hours. So much so that the heaves will eventually produce nothing but small amounts of liquid. Stomach contents definitely emptied.

I would venture that given the circumstances Mary was maybe experiencing 2 but probably number three.

One thing for sure, is that in any of those conditions, I doubt she would head BACK to the pub (from which she had said she just come and had a drink). and certainly in no condition to want to solicate to have sex IMHO. Therefor I see Maxwells statement of seeing her shortly back at the pub to be most problematic.

[Robert St Devil]

hello richardnunweek

i know noone is a fan of lewis the tailor,s statement about seeing mary jane kelly early morning. So how do you gauge this suspected fabricator (npi) of lies considering that his statements were in newsprint by 4pm on that November 9th? Was he just lurking about the murder site, opportunistically hoping that he could spin her murder to his fame-seeking advantage and someone would take his bullshit story serious?

and just so i cover that base before i post this, yes, i am fully aware of those people who fake injuries after seeing bus accidents so they can profit off the claim. still... there is profit to be gained ,there, whereas Lewis could only gain fame by being first to the scene with his lies.

[MysterySinger]

There's one of those annoying little quotes in the press that I do not think has been investigated to the extent it should be. I could be wrong, but I don't recall much done about this.

"One woman remarked to a reporter, - "I know the woman well. I've often drank with her; but bless yer life, I don't know her proper name. We called her Mary Jane. We don't often know one another's names. Nobody knows mine."

The above quote is often included with a story that the victim was known as Lizzie Fisher, but known locally as "Mary Jane".

I don't know if anyone really researched all the "Elizabeth Fisher's" in their early 20's in 1888.

A suggestion has previously been made (and quoted in the A to Z) that the victim was one Winifred May Collis.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi,
Must come back to the point .The police believed at least initially , that this murder occurred in daylight.
For them to have believed this, and not their police doctors, they must have put a lot of faith on morning witnesses ie, Maxwell, or had some other information.
If Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, say for Lizzie Albrook, who not only was a resident of Millers court, but young, and worked in a Dorset street lodging house,[ note Maxwell saying ''I have seen the deceased in the lodging house''] then surely she would have realised her mistake , when she saw young Lizzie in the coming days,or even weeks.
I would say there is no doubt that Mrs Maxwell saw either Mary Kelly, as stated, or someone she mistook for her, and the dialogue she mentioned, and the ''Horrors of drink'' and vomit was accurately told.
There is just a chance however, that Maxwell went to great pains to convince the police, that the victim was alive, just after 8 am, for the reason of giving someone an alibi, who had none for the hours of darkness.?
My speculative mind rears its head once more.
Regards Richard.

The Times also says that there was a second female witness who saw Kelly on Friday morning;

" Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning"

Interestingly, it also says this;

"It is the opinion of Mr. M'Carthy [McCarthy], the landlord of 26, Dorset-street, that the woman was murdered at a much earlier hour than 8 o'clock, and that Mrs. Maxwell and the other person must have been mistaken."

[Joshua Rogan]

This account from the Star fails to mention the photographer.
"Dr. Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on again made a second examination in company with Dr. Bond, from Westminster, Dr. Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr. Duke, from Spitalfields, and Dr. Phillips's assistant."

Hi Jon. The Tines on the 12th carries a very similar report, but makes clear it refers to the Saturday post-mortem examination.
"As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church."

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Must come back to the point .The police believed at least initially , that this murder occurred in daylight.
For them to have believed this, and not their police doctors, they must have put a lot of faith on morning witnesses ie, Maxwell, or had some other information.
If Mrs Maxwell was mistaken, say for Lizzie Albrook, who not only was a resident of Millers court, but young, and worked in a Dorset street lodging house,[ note Maxwell saying ''I have seen the deceased in the lodging house''] then surely she would have realised her mistake , when she saw young Lizzie in the coming days,or even weeks.
I would say there is no doubt that Mrs Maxwell saw either Mary Kelly, as stated, or someone she mistook for her, and the dialogue she mentioned, and the ''Horrors of drink'' and vomit was accurately told.
There is just a chance however, that Maxwell went to great pains to convince the police, that the victim was alive, just after 8 am, for the reason of giving someone an alibi, who had none for the hours of darkness.?
My speculative mind rears its head once more.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

I surmise that Phillips gave the room and the body a visual examination at first, but didn't disturb anything, as they wanted the photographer to take his pictures first. Afterwards, the doctor did a closer examination.

As for evidence, I don't have anything but a recollection that an article mentioned calling for the police photographer.

Yes Pat, the sequence of events is distributed across various newspapers.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant."
Times, 10 Nov.

So we see mention of two examinations on Friday.

"Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, soon arrived, and was followed by Dr. Bond, of Westminster, divisional surgeon of the A division, Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh-square, and two or three other surgeons. They made a preliminary examination of the body and sent for a photographer, who made several photographs of the remains."
Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

This account from the Star fails to mention the photographer.
"Dr. Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on again made a second examination in company with Dr. Bond, from Westminster, Dr. Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr. Duke, from Spitalfields, and Dr. Phillips's assistant."

[Wickerman]

What do you mean by a 'preliminary examination' and what is the evidence that such a thing occurred?

Why does Phillips in his evidence speak of entering the room at 1.30 and then refer to his 'subsequent examination'?

You must be referring to Dr. Phillips's testimony, in that he makes no mention of a post-mortem. So, the 'subsequent examination' of the inquest is also the 'preliminary examination' referred to in the press.

[Pcdunn]

What do you mean by a 'preliminary examination' and what is the evidence that such a thing occurred?

Why does Phillips in his evidence speak of entering the room at 1.30 and then refer to his 'subsequent examination'?

I surmise that Phillips gave the room and the body a visual examination at first, but didn't disturb anything, as they wanted the photographer to take his pictures first. Afterwards, the doctor did a closer examination.

As for evidence, I don't have anything but a recollection that an article mentioned calling for the police photographer.

[Wickerman]

Can we ignore the possibility that they estimated quite different times of death?

The post-mortem was the responsibility of Dr. Phillips. Etiquette might dictate that Bond should not openly disagree with Phillips in a report to his superior, without respectfully advising Anderson that Dr. Phillips disagrees, and on what grounds.
We can't be sure of course, but as this estimate was very much open to debate it is only reasonable that Bond would concede that Dr. Phillips is of a different opinion.

[David Orsam]

Dr. Phillips did make a preliminary examination on entering the room at 1:30, after which the photographer appears to have been permitted to enter, prior to the post-mortem beginning at 2:00 pm.

What do you mean by a 'preliminary examination' and what is the evidence that such a thing occurred?

Why does Phillips in his evidence speak of entering the room at 1.30 and then refer to his 'subsequent examination'?

[David Orsam]

This tends to be a reference to Dr. Bond's report for Warren/Anderson. It also appears to suggest the collaboration of Dr. Phillips. We cannot ignore the possibility that the 1:00-2:00 am estimated time of death was the opinion of both Doctors.

Can we ignore the possibility that they estimated quite different times of death?

[David Orsam]

A "partially digested meal of fish and potatoes" (as opposed to, say, "a partially digested snack of fish and potatoes") suggests that a reasonable payload of fish/potatoes was still in the stomach. Ergo, not even partial regurgitaton had taken place.

Well, Jon's question was 'So why would there be fish & potatoes in her stomach, if Maxwell had just seen Kelly throw up?'. That question is wholly answered if the entire contents of the stomach are not emptied when throwing up.

Your speculative suggestion that the doctor might have referred to a partially digested snack of fish and potatoes, on the basis that there wasn't enough food in there to constitute what he thought of as a 'meal', does not strike me as a good one at all I regret to say. Unless you are able to provide some form of evidence that a doctor either then or now, but especially in 1888, on examining the contents of a stomach, could tell if there had been any partial regurgitation of food, then this line of discussion is going nowhere.

[Sam Flynn]

Does one empty the entire stomach contents when throwing up?

A "partially digested meal of fish and potatoes" (as opposed to, say, "a partially digested snack of fish and potatoes") suggests that a reasonable payload of fish/potatoes was still in the stomach. Ergo, not even partial regurgitaton had taken place.