Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[etenguy]

Which brings up a curious point.....One wonders why the killer burned some of the items. For light to work by? Wouldnt that be counterproductive to remaining unseen in that room on that night? He was apparently there a while, longer than any killer had stayed with a previous Canonical. Lighting up that room seems to me a reckless choice.

Hi Michael

I agree. I can think of no reasonable explanation for why the killer would burn items of clothing in the fire. But then we do not know that the killer burnt the items. I wonder whether someone else burnt the clothing earlier.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

Emma Smith and Martha Tabram lived at 18 and 19 George St respectively, which is just south of George Street's intersection with Flower and Dean St, So they would fit the profile. McKenzie lived in Gun St near its intersection with Artillery Lane. To my mind this is outside the profile area, or on the fringe at best. Coles lived in Thrawl St, so she is back in area again.

I wouldn't rate any of your named suspects as being relevant to living in the profile area, but maybe our resident expert on profiling, Jeff Hamm, might like to chime in at this point.

Cheers, George

I think that Jeff will say that the Daily Mail article's notion that geographic profiling pinpoints the exact street that JtR lived on is a misunderstanding of what geographic profiling does. Flower and Dean Street might be the center of the profile, but that only means that it's the highest probability area for him to have lived in, but geographic profiling doesn't argue that he had to have lived right smack in the middle of the area. I'm pretty sure Levy lived close enough to the center to have a strong geographic profile, and I think Cohen and Kosminski did too. But if Jeff doesn't chime in in this thread, you can read his comments and look at his maps in the Geographic Profiling thread and decide for yourself.

[GBinOz]

I think that Jeff will say that the Daily Mail article's notion that geographic profiling pinpoints the exact street that JtR lived on is a misunderstanding of what geographic profiling does. Flower and Dean Street might be the center of the profile, but that only means that it's the highest probability area for him to have lived in, but geographic profiling doesn't argue that he had to have lived right smack in the middle of the area. I'm pretty sure Levy lived close enough to the center to have a strong geographic profile, and I think Cohen and Kosminski did too. But if Jeff doesn't chime in in this thread, you can read his comments and look at his maps in the Geographic Profiling thread and decide for yourself.

Hi Lewis C,

I agree to the point that the coloured area of interest extended from Flower and Dean St to encompass Fashion St and Thrawl St, but if we accept the the closest Kosminski lived to this area was Greenfields Road, and Butchers Row for Levy, I would suggest that those addresses would fall outside the profile area.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Quite right, I meant to post it but I figured everyone was familiar enough. Yes, 1:00-2:00 & the press cutting 2:00-3:00, they are not too wide of the mark, considering in this period no two estimates could be expected to get the same results.
Right again, had Phillips's post-mortem report survived I imagine it being a small book. We just look at McKenzie's and that was 5-6 pages long.

Though it does seem Bond was more influenced by the rate of digestion, one wonders where he got the information from. I would agree that when food is found in the stomach the doctors would immediately inform Abberline as they know this is potential evidence for timing the death.
Abberline must have set his men out to canvas local eateries to see if anyone remembers this red haired young woman on Friday morning. It's a detail we have not read about in the press.

Reasonably, we'd have to go with an official report penned by Dr Bond over a second hand commentary in a newspaper.

I reckon this was Dr Bond's reasoning:

Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.

I think he is saying that the advanced stage of rigor means Mary was dead by around 2am and the partially digested food suggests Mary had eaten around 10 to 11am.

It looks very much like the TOD is predicated on Dr Bond's understanding of rigor mortis and his judgement based on that.

In that situation, given the time that had elapsed and the state of Mary's body, I reckon Dr Bond's statement is pretty much meaningless.

[Fleetwood Mac]

when food is found in the stomach the doctors would immediately inform Abberline as they know this is potential evidence for timing the death.

I think it's an important piece of information.

Both fish and potatoes are easily digestible in the stomach, yet food was found in the stomach, having said that the amount of fat on the food would influence length of time to digest in the stomach.

Given that fish was sold from street vendors and the like, and it was cheap, my guess would be this wasn't fish Mary bought from a market and cooked herself; and assuming Mary Cox was correct in her assessment of Mary's booze intake, then Mary wasn't in a state to cook fish nor had she been around to cook it, i.e. she'd been boozing somewhere.

In the event Mary was murdered later in the morning, then where did she get her fish from after say 3 in the morning? My guess is that she bought, or someone bought for her, the fish from a street vendor at night.

[Wickerman]

There's mention of a Fish shop in Thrawl St., late night eateries were often open all night.
Hot food carts & all night coffee stands were all up and down Whitechapel Road.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's mention of a Fish shop in Thrawl St., late night eateries were often open all night.
Hot food carts & all night coffee stands were all up and down Whitechapel Road.

Can you provide your source for them being open all night?

Cheers.

[Wickerman]

Can you provide your source for them being open all night?

Cheers.

It's not the kind of statement that is going to earn a bookmark, even if only a mental one. No author can say specifically which eateries were open all night and which closed about 3:00am. McCarthy's was sometimes open till three, Bowyer says that somewhere, and McCarthy's sold food. There was another eatery in Wentworth St., we also read of one in Berner St., and because people worked round the clock shifts it was often profitable for places to provide food late into the early morning. Coffee-stalls also sold food, and there were many along Whitechapel Road. Sims mentions one where the owner talks about him selling hot pork sausages and cold meat pies at his stall. Another coffee-stall keeper talks about being open till 3-4:00am.
If it matters, if some important decision rests on one particular eatery being open all night then we'll likely have to concede that cannot be confirmed at this late point in time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it matters, if some important decision rests on one particular eatery being open all night then we'll likely have to concede that cannot be confirmed at this late point in time.

I'd say it may give us a clue.

In the event Mary would have struggled to source that food between say 2 and 6 in the morning, then what does that mean for a later time of death?

We know from all of the witness statements when people were coming in off the streets, we know from street traders when they were closing up for the night.

No customers = no business = no point staying open trying to sell fish, and these people had to sleep: they couldn't stay open 24 hours of the day and would obviously have opened at times when they had a better prospect of customers.

I'd say it's unlikely that Mary sourced the food between the hours of 2.30 and 6 in the morning, what does that mean for a TOD after 6 in the morning?

[Michael W Richards]

I think it's an important piece of information.

Both fish and potatoes are easily digestible in the stomach, yet food was found in the stomach, having said that the amount of fat on the food would influence length of time to digest in the stomach.

Given that fish was sold from street vendors and the like, and it was cheap, my guess would be this wasn't fish Mary bought from a market and cooked herself; and assuming Mary Cox was correct in her assessment of Mary's booze intake, then Mary wasn't in a state to cook fish nor had she been around to cook it, i.e. she'd been boozing somewhere.

In the event Mary was murdered later in the morning, then where did she get her fish from after say 3 in the morning? My guess is that she bought, or someone bought for her, the fish from a street vendor at night.

What was in the tankard that Blotchy had? Its entirely feasible that she and Blotchy had a bit of food and drink when she was singing in her room. If she is murdered around 4, after the "oh murder" was heard, would that allow for the food to have been partially digested before she expires? She gets home at 11:45pm Thursday night, surely lots of vendors were open at that time.

[Wickerman]

It's a problem for those who believe Maxwell, but not for the Cox/Hutchinson followers.

[etenguy]

It's a problem for those who believe Maxwell, but not for the Cox/Hutchinson followers.

There is no reason that any food MJK ate had to be bought just before eating it so I do not think that helps determine TOD or points to necessarily an earlier TOD. Though of course there were sources of food to purchase in the early hours, including McCarthy's shop.

[The Rookie Detective]

Maybe there IS a clue...

Okay, so let's look at some alternate facts from another angle.

Let's jump forward to the murder of Alice McKenzie in the early hours of 17th July 1889.

One of the witnesses; Isaac Lewis Jacob, clearly states that he left his home at 12 Newcastle Street about 10 minutes to 1 (12.50am) on his way to get some SUPPER at McCarthy's in Dorset Street but was stopped by PC Andrews a few minutes later and the PC asks him where he's been and then he accompanies PC Andrews to where McKenzie has been murdered.

The point is that Isaac Jacob was absolutely referring to John McCarthy's shop at 27 Dorset Street and one would presume that he had intended to arrive at McCarthy's to get some supper around 1am.

That at least proves that McCarthys was OPEN at 1am and sold food.

Even though it's almost 2 years AFTER MJK was murdered in Millers Court (back of 26 Dorset Street) It would be fair to say that McCarthy's was open as a regular place to get food in the early hours.

This raises a few questions that I feel need to be asked...

Did MJK get her food from McCarthy's shop in the early hours of the morning she was murdered?

Partly digested food was of course found in her stomach and so is it logical to assume that she would have left her room to get her supper from McCarthy's just yards from her room?

And if she DID get food from there, could that have been where she met her killer?


Of course, there's no proof that's where she got her supper, but because we know that a witness (Isaac Jacobs) was on his way to get his supper at McCarthy's on the night McKenzie was murdered, could the same apply to MJK?

It's proof at least that McCarthy sold food until at least 1am, because that's the estimated time that Isaac Jacob would have arrived at 27 Dorset Street

I know that there's a time gap between MJK and McKenzie, but McCarthy stayed in Dorset Street for years and so there's no reason to suggest that he wasn't open for business in the early hours of MJK being killed.

What's interesting is that Isaac Jacobs states that after he went with PC Andrews to the murder site, that he stayed there until another PC arrived...and then WENT HOME...ergo, he DIDN'T continue on his way to McCarthy's for SUPPER.

But why?

Did the scene of McKenzie's murder put him off the idea of eating supper and he chose to just change his mind and return home to 12 Newcastle Street?

OR

Did he stay at the murder site and then check the time and realize that he may arrive at McCarthy's too late for food, i.e. Did McCarthy's close at a certain time and by staying at the murder site, he missed the chance to eat?

It's likely the former but I find the idea that when PC Andrews approached him, Isaac tells the PC that he was on an errand.
Therefore, could the reason WHY Isaac Jacob DIDN'T then continue on his way to McCarthy's for supper be because that was never his intention and he lied to the PC for whatever reason?

He never says why he went home or why he changes his mind to go back home, but because he didnt then continue on his way to McCarthy's for supper, it makes Isaac Jacob more of a suspect because PC Andrews intercepts him just minutes after and so it at least proves that he was close to the site of the murder around the time the PC found McKenzie, which based on the evidence would suggest very soon after she was murdered.

Going back to MJK regarding the partly digested food in her stomach...could the idea that she got her supper from McCarthy's help to narrow down a more accurate time of death?

Did McCarthy sell the type of food that was found in her stomach?

If he did, then I would suggest it is extremely likely that MJK visited McCarthy's shop to get her supper in the early hours.


What's interesting about McCarthy's shop is that despite being at 27 Dorset Street and Millers Court being just yards away, why are there no witnesses whatsoever relating to activity around McCarthy's shop?

I find it peculiar how no witness mentions McCarthy's on the night of the MJK murder, but the fact that a man found by a PC close to the murder site of McKenzie directly states that he's on his way to Mccarthy's in Dorset Street for supper...and then changes his mind and goes home.

Was Isaac Jacob hinting about McCarthy when he gave his statement?


The other question I have is this...


IF MJK did go to McCarthy's for her supper (based on the fact she would have had to have got her partially digested food found in her stomach from somewhere) how did she purchase it?

Did the killer buy her supper from McCarthy's?

The reason why I think it's important to ask is because MJK owed McCarthy her rent money...and McCarthy sent Bowyer around to collect the rent due a few hours later.


So let's imagine this scenario...

MJK leaves her room and goes to get money, but not for rent...for FOOD.

She walks out of Millers Court and turns east, going in the opposite direction to McCarthy's shop (I BELIEVE) to get some money/pick up a client and to avoid him because she knows her rent is overdue.
She meets her eventual killer and they walk back to Millers Court.. BUT, they stop to get food, which they take back to her room. The killer pays for her supper and its at this point that McCarthy knows that MJK has a client...

This is WHY he sends Bowyer around a few hours later to collect rent money, it's because he knows that she will have the money for the rent; because she would have been paid by her client. It would explain the coincidental timing of McCarhty sending Bowyer around to get rent a few hours later.

But what about the witnesses?

It would seem likely that George Hutchinson worked for Crossingham due to his reference to Romford and it not being his real name and Maxwell's husband worked in the lodging house opposite and so her account may have had a hidden agenda

Could the whole thing have been an attempt to cover it up in some way?

It would explain the contrasting witness statements, which are too contrasting to all be true accounts.

Someone is lying and that is fairly obvious.


And so, what if the killer was a well known local man with influence and power, and who had a lust for mutilating vulnerable women?


What if McCarthy knew the man who killed MJK?

Crossinghams lodging house were proven to have attempted to try and cover up the murder of a prostitute in 1901, by sending the police to the wrong bed.

And so could this have been part of their lodging house code or culture?


Lots of conjecture and hypotheses...but I'd appreciate some feedback on my points please.


Regards


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi RD.
One of the reasons I have doubted Mary bought food from McCarthy's is precisely because she owed so much rent.
Any landlord will take what she offers for the pie, and just say "thankyou, that can go towards your rent arrears my dear", she walks away with no pie.

Bowyer was interviewed by the press, he spoke about seeing a man in the court around 3:00 am when he went out to fetch water...
This early visit to the water-tap is by no means an unfrequent thing, as Mr. McCarthy's shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o'clock in the morning,while occasionally it is open all night.
Echo, 14 Nov. 1888.

Whether McCarthy closes at three, or stays open all night is his choice, which is why it will not be possible to find a list of eateries who did or didn't stay open all night.

[Wickerman]

There is no reason that any food MJK ate had to be bought just before eating it so I do not think that helps determine TOD or points to necessarily an earlier TOD. Though of course there were sources of food to purchase in the early hours, including McCarthy's shop.

Quite true.
It's just that when we read books like Mayhew's, London Labour and the London Poor, you soon get the impression that when the poor managed to get their hands on morsals of food, they ate it. None of this keeping something for a rainy day. Kelly would have no leftovers from a previous meal, when they got money - they spend it. When they got food they ate it.
So I see it reasonable for the police to assume if Kelly had taken a meal, it must have been bought very soon before consumption.
Of course it isn't a fact, it's a reasonable working hypothesis bearing in mind they have little else to go on.