Fish and Chips

[Sam Flynn]

Doesn't help us, though, because we don't know when she ate.

We can make some inferences, though, Roy - based on Kelly's behaviour during the night, and what she is said to have done the next morning by Maxwell. We can also investigate the behaviour/customs of Victorians when it came to eating fish and chips, and/or when chandlers shops started/stopped serving them. None of this info is likely to be definitive, however it might well prove useful when added together.

I don't have the answers - I'm just pointing out that all might not be lost when suggesting when Kelly is likely to have eaten her last meal.

[Chava]

We can make some inferences, though, Roy - based on Kelly's behaviour during the night, and what she is said to have done the next morning by Maxwell. We can also investigate the behaviour/customs of Victorians when it came to eating fish and chips, and/or when chandlers shops started/stopped serving them. None of this info is likely to be definitive, however it might well prove useful when added together.

I don't have the answers - I'm just pointing out that all might not be lost when suggesting when Kelly is likely to have eaten her last meal.

That's true. Gareth, you've found a chippy serving til 2.00 am, I believe. In Leman St? And they may have opened early for the market porters. But if Kelly bought fish and chips at McCarthy's store, I'd expect him to tell the police and he didn't. I strongly suspect you'd get a rush of punters to the chippy stalls around 11.00 pm/midnight. After they've drunk a skinful, they might get the munchies. At least I remember that's what always used to happen when I was a student. Later on you might not get so many customers and you might remember the ones you do get.

I've been trying to discover what time the pubs had to shut. It seems that by 1888, licensing laws were brought in to restrict pub hours. In the early 20th Century, the 11.00 pm restriction was imposed, so closing time must have been later than that beforehand. I can't see Kelly leaving the Ringers or wherever until she had to!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

That particular chandler/chippy was in Thrawl Street, actually - close to the corner of which Kelly got tapped on the shoulder by << cough! >> ... according to the testimony of << ahem! >>, anyway.

[Chava]

Hi Chava,

That particular chandler/chippy was in Thrawl Street, actually - close to the corner of which Kelly got tapped on the shoulder by << cough! >> ... according to the testimony of << ahem! >>, anyway.

That's why she asked ....... for 6d. To buy a fish supper! And when he turned her down she moved on down the street driven by an irresistible urge for chips. And met her fate

[Sam Flynn]

when he turned her down she moved on down the street driven by an irresistible urge for chips. And met her fate

... "had her chips", you mean

[caz]

Hi All,

I wouldn't have thought desperately poor women with a fondness for booze would have eaten what we'd call a 'meal' more than twice a day at the outside in the 1880s. A late night fish supper might well have been all the food a woman in Mary's circumstances would have had all day, so not much lining of the stomach going on there before a typical evening spent cadging or earning her liquid refreshment.

I've heard that... sleep... will slow down the digestion process, and I'd be interested to hear some conformation (or otherwise) of this.

Hi Ben,

Well it seems you are right according to Observer, but I had always assumed that because the digestion process itself uses up a fair bit of energy, the most efficient time for it would be while the person was asleep, or at least at rest, when energy reserves are not diverted to other activities. Isn't the body trying to tell us something when we feel sleepy after a huge lunch?

I thought the digestion process would be most severely compromised, for instance, by trying to run a marathon immediately after scoffing a huge battered cod with large chips. Isn't that one reason why it's risky to swim after a big meal?

In fact I had long suspected it was a myth that eating just before bedtime should be avoided because it wouldn't have a chance to be 'worked off'. (Apparently you have to walk 4 bleedin' miles to burn the calories you get from a single mince pie. ) And according to Dr Tickly Bones on GMTV, it's more likely that people in the habit of eating that late in the evening these days are probably eating too much at other times of the day as well and that’s what really should be avoided.

On balance, when I take Sam's alcohol advice into account, I'd have thought a drunken slumber shortly after Mary's last food intake would have given her tummy what it needed for a relatively speedy digestion process.

I have no feelings either way re Carrie Maxwell's account. For me, it hangs on how much she knew about the woman she met (I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have confused the dates) and how she could have been sure this was Mary Kelly of 13 Room, Miller's Court. I have no doubt in my mind that it was MJK on that bed, but I keep a very open mind when it comes to the time her killer pounced. Wolf has always given me food for thought on the subject and I think it would be foolish to dismiss his information without very clear evidence for doing so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi all,

A belated thanks to all who kindly responded to my query about the rate of digestion. On balence I'm inclined to agree with Observer's view with regard to the likely time of consumption, and I recall with interest that a medical contributor from Spain who went by the name "Tutto" pre-crash, subscribed to the same view. An 11:45am dining would have been a "late supper", Caz, just not a ridiculously late one where the chances of any foot-outlet not remembering Kelly purchsing food were markedly decreased.

The death of Ellen Bury offers us an interesting comparison case. The autopsy revealed some "partially digested" food in her stomach, and would have been carried out some time after her death. I'd urge caution when drawing any hard and fast conclusions from the word "partial", since without knowing how "partial" it was, it tells us next to nothing about the actual extent of digestion.

All the best,
Ben

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Well, actually, since you bring it up, when I started the thread I pointed out that I did my own little survey. As it happens I have access to a network of people interested in cold case forensics and they are all either working or retired senior medical examiners in the United States. That question was asked two days ago, not ten years ago. The answer was 1-3 hours after eating the meal.

I'm glad that you asked someone to ask someone (only days ago) a question about digestion. I'm sure that the information you received was informative enough to answer any and all questions pertaining to the death of Mary Kelly (although it's odd that your forensic friends didn't point out that digestion on its own, with no idea when the last meal was eaten, is practically meaningless).

The rigor evidence is iffy at best. You cannot look at the PM and draw any real conclusions of fact about rigor or anything else. There are too many variables at play.

And yet the roughly dozen forensic pathologists, who gave me the stale, ten year old information, did offer time of death based on the described state of rigor along with other variables. Perhaps they were just more knowledgeable than your lot. After all, they were provided with in situ reports, autopsy reports, inquest reports, police reports, weather reports, detailed descriptions of the victim, the room in which she was found, the circumstances surrounding the night of the murder and pictures of the body (but your digestion questions was probably good too). However, regardless of that, you say that they are all wrong (and I guess we can include Dr. Phillips, who actually examined the body, in that little group and throw in James Tully's Dr. Hocking for good measure).

There is no evidence that Kelly was seen wiping chip-fat off her chin… sick the beer--but not the fish and chips!--back up…

Here's another question for you. According to the autopsy report partially digested "fish and potatoes" were found in the remains of the stomach and scattered over the intestines. Go back and ask you friends what type of fish this was and how it was prepared. See what they say. You keep calling the meal "fish and chips" and state that the meal was "greasy." How, exactly, do you know this for a fact? Explain how this meal could have been cooked in no other way (going into detail on how street vendors who sold potatoes baked over a brazier shouldn't be considered) and provide evidence, please don’t give your own opinions, to back yourself up. I’d be really interested in hearing your evidence.

Wolf.

[c.d.]

Let me go off on a bit of a tangent here. I suppose there could be factors that we are not aware of that come into play but in general if someone was planning on murdering and butchering the victim, wouldn't it make more sense to do it late at night when more people would be asleep and there was less chance of being seen?

c.d.

[Chava]

Wolf, please stop clutching your pearls like an affronted dowager. You're not the only one on this board with access to that amount of original information and you have no knowledge of how and what I asked my little pool of helpful medical examiners (and one profiler). The one thing my guys told me was this: everything is supposition. Forensic medicine was not advanced. Too many variables in temperature etc to give a really good indication based on rigor.

Unlike you, I am not clinging grimly to the wreckage of an entrenched theory. I think the murderer might be McCarthy, but I'm not sure. I think the murderer is more likely an unknown East End working man but I can't prove it. I'm not even certain that Kelly was a victim of the Ripper. I'm on the fence about that. I won't completely discount the evidence of Caroline Maxwell. However I believe it might be extremely unlikely, because my investigations suggest to me that the appearance of the blood in the room would have been a determining factor in the decision as to the time of death, and this would be something that doctors would have had empirical experience of for many centuries. If Maxwell sees her at 9.30 am and your guys tell you she dies around 10.00 am at the latest, then there would have been fresh blood all over the place. Blood consistency changes as blood reacts with the air, and there was at least one deep pool of blood that would have changed appearance based on time exposed.

You're right about the fish. Except baked-potato merchants didn't sell grilled fish. So she had the fish and maybe the potato at home and baked one and grilled the other. Except that the famous banked-up fire was dying down considerably by the time the body was found, and no one smelled or saw any remnants of cooking along with the burnt cloth and paper. So she buys the potato from a potato guy and trips past the Hotel de Posh to pick up a small piece of take-out trout...

Nah, on balance I'll stick with the fish and chips. It's the most likely meal. It's by far the easiest to obtain. And I'm pretty sure she conned it out of Blotchy Face.

Oh, and one more thing

I'm sure that the information you received was informative enough to answer any and all questions pertaining to the death of Mary Kelly (although it's odd that your forensic friends didn't point out that digestion on its own, with no idea when the last meal was eaten, is practically meaningless).

They did The whole point of the thread is to try and work out when she ate those fish and chips. Because it would help narrow down the time of death wouldn't it? So that's why I went through all the possibilities as to when she could have bought 'em...

[Robert]

The mention of blood reminds me of Shannon Christopher, who argued that Kelly was killed in the morning, not the night, because the blood would have dried up had she been killed in the night. Shannon thinks there was liquid blood in the room.

[BillieHoliday]

Anyone who favours she was killed in the morning might like to know that fish was regularly served up as breakfast in those days. Kippers and 'bloaters' were popular.

And I think some pubs did serve food, the Ringers possibly served food to accommate the market workers nearby.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Chava.

I see that you’re missing the point and ignoring what I asked.

So far you have claimed that you have asked your “little pool of helpful medical examiners (and one profiler)” about the time of death of Mary Kelly. The only piece of information which they have offered you, it seems, is that it would take somewhere from 1 hour to 3 hours for a meal of fish and potatoes to reach a state that could be described as “partially digested.” That’s it. Suspiciously, that tiny bit of information is the kind you might look up in a book or on the internet. Questions about Bond’s competence? No. Views on Phillips’ ideas? Nope. Thoughts about algor mortis? None. Opinions on rigor mortis? No way, because there are “Too many variables in temperature etc to give a really good indication based on rigor.” Really? That’s the best “they” could come up with? It’s too hard? Now that’s very suspicious because the experts I consulted were more than happy to give their opinions on time of death based on Bond’s description of the state of rigor and other factors. Absolutely nothing, however, from your “little pool.”

In fact, by your own words, you have been offered absolutely no opinion on time of death and yet you have stated that Kelly was murdered sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 am. Where, then, does this opinion come from? Well, from you, and you alone and not from your (less than) helpful medical examiners. To make matters worse, or funny depending on your point of view, you have decided that your layman’s opinion and knowledge is somehow greater and more trustworthy than people like Dr. Phillips who was there and who actually examined the body. That’s some feeling of superiority and entitlement ya got there. Personally, your unknowledgeable layman’s opinion is less than useless, and I think you know this. Why else would you keep claiming that you have had expert help on fixing time of death when you obviously have not?

Wolf.

[Chava]

Chava.

I see that you’re missing the point and ignoring what I asked.

So far you have claimed that you have asked your “little pool of helpful medical examiners (and one profiler)” about the time of death of Mary Kelly. The only piece of information which they have offered you, it seems, is that it would take somewhere from 1 hour to 3 hours for a meal of fish and potatoes to reach a state that could be described as “partially digested.” That’s it. Suspiciously, that tiny bit of information is the kind you might look up in a book or on the internet. Questions about Bond’s competence? No. Views on Phillips’ ideas? Nope. Thoughts about algor mortis? None. Opinions on rigor mortis? No way, because there are “Too many variables in temperature etc to give a really good indication based on rigor.” Really? That’s the best “they” could come up with? It’s too hard? Now that’s very suspicious because the experts I consulted were more than happy to give their opinions on time of death based on Bond’s description of the state of rigor and other factors. Absolutely nothing, however, from your “little pool.”

In fact, by your own words, you have been offered absolutely no opinion on time of death and yet you have stated that Kelly was murdered sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 am. Where, then, does this opinion come from? Well, from you, and you alone and not from your (less than) helpful medical examiners. To make matters worse, or funny depending on your point of view, you have decided that your layman’s opinion and knowledge is somehow greater and more trustworthy than people like Dr. Phillips who was there and who actually examined the body. That’s some feeling of superiority and entitlement ya got there. Personally, your unknowledgeable layman’s opinion is less than useless, and I think you know this. Why else would you keep claiming that you have had expert help on fixing time of death when you obviously have not?

Wolf.

Oh for God's sake!

Wolf, you and I disagree. But we don't disagree on anything Ripper-related because what I said at the top of the thread was

the fish and chips suggest to me that Kelly was killed earlier in the evening than has been previously suggested. That she died between 1.30 and 2.00 am. And if this is the case, I doubt she left her room after entering it with Blotchy Face.

Did you miss the bit where I said 'suggest to me...'? I will never say 'this is what happened' because I don't know that. Neither do you. My guys told me what they told me. They would have loved to see the room to note among other things the disposition of the blood pool. They did not and would not say anything more concrete than that because they are responsible scientists used to dealing with real crime scenes and they won't deal in possibilities. The questions I asked them were general because I'm aware of that, although I did send over the reports, weather reports etc etc so they would have as much info as I could give them.

Secondly, I don't believe I have a reputation on this board for making stuff up. And I think you just suggested that I did.

You owe me an apology on that one, sunshine.

[Chava]

One more thing, Wolf.

I read your interesting dissertation on the Chapman murder and Chapman's time of death. Here is a quote from that:

Dr. Robert Court, who contributed to a discussion about this issue on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website several years ago, asked colleagues in the pathology department this very question. His personal opinion was that it would take about an hour for a potato to be fully digested but was told that "a time of less than half-an-hour was realistic." One forensic pathologist that I talked to told me that a small meal of potatoes would be fully digested "in about an hour to an hour and a half," 32 while another told me "this small solid meal would take some time like 2 3 hours, 'let us say' to be digested." 33 Here we have a range of between half an hour to three hours for Annie Chapman's meal to have become fully digested, which would suggest that as the food was only partially digested at death the range for estimated time of death falls somewhere after 1:30 to1:45 a.m., the last time we know she ate, and sometime before 4:30 a.m. or, the time offered by Dr. Phillips.

I see one of your people agreed with mine: '2-3 hours'. In any case, there is nothing here about Kelly and nothing here about fish, so I think your above comments are disingenuous. You questioned Dr Robert Court, and he asked his pals in pathology, how long it would take for Annie Chapman to digest her baked potato. The baked potato she was seen eating in the doss-house before she left to look for her doss-money. That is a simple, starchy meal. And starches leave the stomach fairly quickly.

Proteins, however, take longer. Fish is a protein and would take longer to digest than potatoes. Now we come down to the fish and chip problem. If she ate a baked potato and then ate some plain grilled fish, she might digest both within the space of an hour or an hour and a half. However if she ate fish and chips, she would also be digesting a lot of fat in and around the protein, in and around the starch. Fat inhibits digestion and takes much longer to go through the system. That takes us to the outer limits--possibly as long as three hours. There are also other factors at work. If Kelly had for years eaten plain grilled and baked food with little protein and no fat, and then ate fish and chips, she wouldn't half have a stomach ache. And it would take her longer to digest the food. If Kelly lived on fast food, it would take less time.

I got quite a lot more out of that dissertation. Such as your assertion that it is a given in Ripperology that Kelly died around 4.00 am. That surprised me. Because the people who think Hutchinson killed her, and the other people who believe Hutchinson's evidence, seem to think she was dead long before 4.00 am. There are people who believe that Kelly uttered the cry of 'oh, murder' and there are people like myself who absolutely don't. I think she might have been dead earlier than 2.00 am.

I'd love to argue the rigor question with you, but it's a tough one unless we have access to more than simply reported information. In general it seems as if, both in Chapman and Kelly, received medical opinion is at odds with some of the witness evidence. And the witnesses are at odds with each other. Elizabeth Long and Albert Cadoche both have compelling evidence but their timing is out by at least 15 minutes of each other. Maxwell's evidence of the Kelly sighting suggests a very late murder. Much later than might be likely if Hutchinson's evidence stands up.

Now, as you know, I don't believe Maxwell's evidence stands up to criticism. But that's an argument for another thread (Gareth would be proud of me!)

On this thread, let's stick to the fish and chips. If that's what she ate, it would take longer to digest than if she'd stuck simply to a baked potato. But we know she also ate fish. And even if she did not eat fish and chips, that fish, according to my guys, would take longer to go through. Of course your medical info might conflict with mine. But if that's the case, we would simply be re-enacting medical opinions at the time of the murders!