Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

My "theory" as you term it couldn't be more public.

It's openly available at Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Simon-Daryl-Wood/dp/B0C9SLCVNT/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=secret+history+simon+daryl+wood&qid=1689706161&s=books&sr=1-1

You seem to be attempting to be spared from the bother of buying it.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

If you have actually stated what you think occurred in 1888, the reason for it, in short the answers to the two questions I posed, then fantastic.

However, having bought physical copies of each edition of the previous book and the Ebook, and having not seen those answers yet, I am awaiting people to tell me it gives the answers before I purchase it.

If indeed you have given answers to those questions, then it's rather surprising that such as not be discussed on any forum recently.

Time will tell.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi eten
out of spite? to stoke the fire up so he can see his handiwork better?

[Aethelwulf]

Hi eten
out of spite? to stoke the fire up so he can see his handiwork better?

I think it's either a practical thing (light) or a domination thing (I own you sort of thing, I burn your clothes to show you are nothing). Bury burnt some of his wife's clothes as well.

[c.d.]

Hi eten
out of spite? to stoke the fire up so he can see his handiwork better?

To see his handiwork better seems quite reasonable.

c.d.

[c.d.]

And as I stated previously, perhaps as a signal that Mary was with someone and did not want to be disturbed. Mary could have told him that.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

You can be absolutely certain that where there is custom there is a business.

We know that people were back on the streets again after say 5.30am in good numbers. We know that Elizabeth Prater was looking for booze and men were harnessing horses outside. We know that the pubs opened again around that time.

We know that Victorian era sleeping patterns were different to ours. Our sleeping pattern of say 8 hours continuous sleep is a modern invention. In Victorian times, the optimum sleeping pattern was considered to be a few hours in the early morning, get up at say 4am, do a few chores, or in these women's habits go to the pub; and go back to bed for a few hours. It follows that lots of people on the streets after say 5.30am, is to be expected in that period.

But, you have to show that fish and chips or fish and potatoes were part of the breakfast of the Victorian poor, i.e. there was a market for it at that time of the morning. I doubt it very much.

I've lived in England all of my life, and believe me when I say that fried fish is not something that people eat for their breakfast. Add in Mary's financial position, and then add the choice of many of those people: booze or fried fish in the morning.

The likelihood is that Mary, or more to the point the person who bought fish and chips/potatoes for her, did not source that food after 1.30am. Add in that Mary was in her room for a while singing, and in my mind it is highly likely that Mary ate that food prior to Mary Cox seeing her.

But, why don't you have a look 'round the internet, do some research on the breakfast habits of the Victorian poor. In the event you find something interesting, people will appreciate it.

I agree with you totally.

Perhaps the fact that the partly digested food found in her stomach post-mortem is a strong point towards her being murdered earlier and the witnesses that stated seeing her the next morning were either mistaken or lying.

The type of food found in her stomach is a SUPPER food and not something that you'd associate with breakfast. Not impossible, but certainly improbable.

On that basis, MJK's last meal wasn't breakfast. It could still mean that she was alive and well the next morning and never ate breakfast and so was indeed spotted by Maxwell and Co.
However, science PROVES that she had consumed a meal shortly before her death, meaning she would have had to have eaten her supper at breakfast time, which doesn't really fit.

The food found in her stomach is a piece of obscure but crucial evidence that she ate food consistent with supper shortly before she died.
This then supports a TOD sometime after 1am, BUT close enough to the time she was found in her room for the food to have not fully digested and/or for her to have not consumed other food AFTER her supper.

The question is, how long would it have taken for her to have consumed her meal and for the food to have been partially digested in her stomach to the point when she was murdered and her upper gastric system stopped functioning and remained dormant in her stomach?

Any food in her lower gastric system, i.e. her intestines, her bowel etc... would have flushed out through her body (bowel) after she had been murdered. In other words, because food was found partially digested in her stomach, it should give us a more accurate and reduced time frame in which to analyze the timeline correctly.

The science says that it should take approximately 45 minutes for Fish and 1 hour for potato to pass THROUGH a relatively healthy stomach.

The entire process of food being consumed to the point of excretion can take up to 72 hours, BUT food passes through the stomach relatively quickly; in around an hour and the majority of the time the food spends in the body occurs AFTER it has passed through the stomach.

It also depends on the type of food that is consumed.

However, Fish is particularly easy to pass through the stomach and so because fish was found partially digested in her stomach, I would suggest that she consumed her meal no more than 1 hour BEFORE she was murdered.

Now unless MJK enjoyed Fish and Potato for breakfast, it is highly unlikely that she would have been alive the next morning.

If she went out and met her killer, who then used the ruse of buying her food at McCarthy's a few yards away and going back to her room (she wouldn't have gone to McCarthy herself because she owed him rent).. BUT she had to have gotten the food from somewhere close to Millers Court and relatively soon before she was murdered because its unlikely she would have been sitting on that kind of food for long before consumption of said food.

So let's hypothesize that the 1.30am time is possible because McCarthy's (And other shops) would have been open up until this time.

(Isaac Lewis Jacob was on his way to McCarthy's for supper on the night McKenzie was murdered. He arrival time would have been 1am, so can predict that McCarthy would have been serving food up until at least 1am)

AND

Elizabeth Mahoney went to get supper at a chandler's shop in Thrawl street on the night Martha Tabram was murdered. Her arrival time was approximately 1.45am.

So we have McCarthy's OPEN at 1am (in 1889)
and another Chandlers shop in Thrawl Street OPEN at 1.45am (August 1888)

But let's say 1.30am as an approximate time for purchasing food because we know that it's a reasonable time to get supper in those days AND there were still places open to buy supper.

3am for example would be less likely than 1.30am based on the fact we have 2 different witnesses from 2 other murders who went to purchase supper between 1am and 1.45am respectively.

And so...

She somehow gets her supper around 1.30am (conjecture but still realistic and more probable than at 9am or 3am)

We dont know where from but we can be sure that it was unlikely to have been from McCarthy's UNLESS someone (her killer?) got the food for her. because MJK owed him rent.

She then goes back to her room and we know that at some point she before she was murdered (approximately an hour before she was murdered) she consumed the food.

Was the fire lit to help heat the food as it may have gone cold? Was the food warmed by the fire or was it consumed cold, or eaten very soon after she had returned to her room?

Was she singing as she was sitting with her killer and preparing/eating the meal?

Did the killer forget he left the ginger beer bottles?

Ginger Beer and a meal consumed together?

Its unlikely she would have taken a client back to eat a meal and so this may suggest that her killer was someone close to her whom she trusted to sit and eat with.

Or, did she eat her meal and then go out again to tout for business and then bring the killer back with her AFTER she had eaten?

Did the killer warm his hands by the fire as he waited for MJK to sleep and then attack her after she drifted off to sleep?

Did the killer pay for her supper as a ruse to get her back to her room?

Did McCarthy choose to send Bowyer around to Millers Court because he knew she had taken a client back to her room after he had bought her supper?


Lots to think about



RD

[Aethelwulf]

I agree with you totally.

Perhaps the fact that the partly digested food found in her stomach post-mortem is a strong point towards her being murdered earlier and the witnesses that stated seeing her the next morning were either mistaken or lying.

The type of food found in her stomach is a SUPPER food and not something that you'd associate with breakfast. Not impossible, but certainly improbable.

On that basis, MJK's last meal wasn't breakfast. It could still mean that she was alive and well the next morning and never ate breakfast and so was indeed spotted by Maxwell and Co.
However, science PROVES that she had consumed a meal shortly before her death, meaning she would have had to have eaten her supper at breakfast time, which doesn't really fit.

The food found in her stomach is a piece of obscure but crucial evidence that she ate food consistent with supper shortly before she died.
This then supports a TOD sometime after 1am, BUT close enough to the time she was found in her room for the food to have not fully digested and/or for her to have not consumed other food AFTER her supper.

The question is, how long would it have taken for her to have consumed her meal and for the food to have been partially digested in her stomach to the point when she was murdered and her upper gastric system stopped functioning and remained dormant in her stomach?

Any food in her lower gastric system, i.e. her intestines, her bowel etc... would have flushed out through her body (bowel) after she had been murdered. In other words, because food was found partially digested in her stomach, it should give us a more accurate and reduced time frame in which to analyze the timeline correctly.

The science says that it should take approximately 45 minutes for Fish and 1 hour for potato to pass THROUGH a relatively healthy stomach.

The entire process of food being consumed to the point of excretion can take up to 72 hours, BUT food passes through the stomach relatively quickly; in around an hour and the majority of the time the food spends in the body occurs AFTER it has passed through the stomach.

It also depends on the type of food that is consumed.

However, Fish is particularly easy to pass through the stomach and so because fish was found partially digested in her stomach, I would suggest that she consumed her meal no more than 1 hour BEFORE she was murdered.

Now unless MJK enjoyed Fish and Potato for breakfast, it is highly unlikely that she would have been alive the next morning.

If she went out and met her killer, who then used the ruse of buying her food at McCarthy's a few yards away and going back to her room (she wouldn't have gone to McCarthy herself because she owed him rent).. BUT she had to have gotten the food from somewhere close to Millers Court and relatively soon before she was murdered because its unlikely she would have been sitting on that kind of food for long before consumption of said food.

So let's hypothesize that the 1.30am time is possible because McCarthy's (And other shops) would have been open up until this time.

(Isaac Lewis Jacob was on his way to McCarthy's for supper on the night McKenzie was murdered. He arrival time would have been 1am, so can predict that McCarthy would have been serving food up until at least 1am)

AND

Elizabeth Mahoney went to get supper at a chandler's shop in Thrawl street on the night Martha Tabram was murdered. Her arrival time was approximately 1.45am.

So we have McCarthy's OPEN at 1am (in 1889)
and another Chandlers shop in Thrawl Street OPEN at 1.45am (August 1888)

But let's say 1.30am as an approximate time for purchasing food because we know that it's a reasonable time to get supper in those days AND there were still places open to buy supper.

3am for example would be less likely than 1.30am based on the fact we have 2 different witnesses from 2 other murders who went to purchase supper between 1am and 1.45am respectively.

And so...

She somehow gets her supper around 1.30am (conjecture but still realistic and more probable than at 9am or 3am)

We dont know where from but we can be sure that it was unlikely to have been from McCarthy's UNLESS someone (her killer?) got the food for her. because MJK owed him rent.

She then goes back to her room and we know that at some point she before she was murdered (approximately an hour before she was murdered) she consumed the food.

Was the fire lit to help heat the food as it may have gone cold? Was the food warmed by the fire or was it consumed cold, or eaten very soon after she had returned to her room?

Was she singing as she was sitting with her killer and preparing/eating the meal?

Did the killer forget he left the ginger beer bottles?

Ginger Beer and a meal consumed together?

Its unlikely she would have taken a client back to eat a meal and so this may suggest that her killer was someone close to her whom she trusted to sit and eat with.

Or, did she eat her meal and then go out again to tout for business and then bring the killer back with her AFTER she had eaten?

Did the killer warm his hands by the fire as he waited for MJK to sleep and then attack her after she drifted off to sleep?

Did the killer pay for her supper as a ruse to get her back to her room?

Did McCarthy choose to send Bowyer around to Millers Court because he knew she had taken a client back to her room after he had bought her supper?


Lots to think about



RD

Look on the Annie chapman last meal thread. I think Jeff found some good data on digestion. If I remember correctly having identifiable food in the stomach was pretty much useless as an indication of ToD

[etenguy]

Hi eten
out of spite? to stoke the fire up so he can see his handiwork better?

Hi Abby

I know that is what Abberline stated, but it seemed to me it was an off the cuff answer to the question. I do not find that explanation satisfactory. though I know others do and of course we have no more evidence to evaluate that helps us to understand what happened. I am in the minority here, and may very well be wrong. The description of the fire remains suggests to me the clothes were flung on the fire as an emotional reaction rather than a practical one for light. And all the clothes at once that it became quite hot and melted the pot spout - it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't expect you to agree but hope you can see where I am coming from and why I find Abberline's explanation weak. Your suggestion that there was some spite or anger involved makes more sense to me.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis

You make a good point. Though would MJK have eaten fish and potatoes for breakfast?

Hi Etenguy,

Thanks, and you make a good point too, as did Fleetwood Mac.

[GBinOz]

She somehow gets her supper around 1.30am (conjecture but still realistic and more probable than at 9am or 3am)

Hi RD,

Let us dwell upon this point. Both Lewis and Maxwell said they saw Mary in the morning. Abberline said he interrogated Maxwell and was unable to break her story, and she was undeterred by the warning issued to her before her inquest testimony. She testifed:

"I spoke across the street, "What, Mary, brings you up so early ?" She said, "Oh, Carrie, I do feel so bad."
She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road."

What are the options?

1. Lewis and Maxwell were both mistaken or careless with the truth.

2. Maxwell did see Mary and, after vomiting up the content of her alcohol binged stomach, including the "hair of the dog", she bought a nice greasy piece of fish and picked up a client who killed her.

3. Lewis and Maxwell did see Mary, someone else was murdered in Miller's Court, and Mary returned to find the body and throw up after seeing that sight. But what about her hair colour? Dye could easily be shared between friends. But if Mary wasn't in the room she was renting, where was she, and why. This can only be conjecture, but I will draw attention to the following for consideration:

Hull Daily Mail
Nov 12, 1888


Just a little more to think about.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

However, Fish is particularly easy to pass through the stomach and so because fish was found partially digested in her stomach, I would suggest that she consumed her meal no more than 1 hour BEFORE she was murdered.

Now unless MJK enjoyed Fish and Potato for breakfast, it is highly unlikely that she would have been alive the next morning.

I think nailing it down to within an hour is problematic.

It is often said that potatoes fully digest in the stomach within an hour. An article was written on Annie Chapman's food intake, and the opinions of qualified pathologists were included in that article. Their average estimate was 1.5 to 2 hours to fully digest in the stomach. That's all from memory, but I think I have that correct.

In terms of the fish, it would depend on how much fat it had been cooked in. The reason why fish is easily digestible is because it's lean and has a low fibre content.

I mentioned fried fish above but there were other types of fish on offer from street vendors, e.g. shell-fish, which digest very easily for the same reasons.

The most I would say here is that I reckon when Dr Bond said Mary had eaten 3 to 4 hours before her death, he was over-estimating.

I'd say 2.5 hours at the very most and more likely less than that. A quick google reveals that most cooking sites are suggesting fish fully digests in the stomach within an hour, but those aren't pathologists and so I'd reserve judgement on that.

What we don't know is how far through the stomach digestion process the fish and potatoes were. It may have been towards the start of the process or the end of the process or halfway through the process. Obviously, start or halfway through reduces that '2.5 hours at the very most' considerably.

Based on what I have read of poor Victorians' eating habits, I'd say it's highly unlikely that Mary ate fish for breakfast, and when you add in that Mary was among the most desperate; then I'd say pretty much no chance.

Mary leaves us a clue. She had stale bread in her room. Either stale bread held great ornamental value for the most desperate Victorians, or stale bread was going to be needed farther down the line suggesting fish for breakfast was a luxury beyond her eating habits.

And then you look at the window of opportunity to source fish. After 1.30am is going to be a problem for the reasons stated in previous posts. According to Mary Cox, Mary was still singing at 1am and so it's fair to assume that Mary hadn't left her room after entering it with Blotchy, and we don't know what time the singing stopped; only that it was quiet by 1.30am. I'd say the more likely bet is that Mary ate that fish before she was seen with Blotchy.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Etenguy,

Thanks, and you make a good point too, as did Fleetwood Mac.

I suppose a question to ask is, did anyone enter Kelly's room with anything that could have been something like fish and chips wrapped in paper:

• he man was carrying "a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it"

What is this thing, is it in fact two things? One being a parcel of fish and chips, the other being a strappy thing carried in the same hand. I will point out that the man being pursued after the Framer attack less than two weeks later hit someone with a whip. Was Aman holding his fish and chips and whip in the same hand, with the whip underneath, part of it showing as the strap. If Hutch had been a groom though would he have recognised it? Perhaps not if it was only a small part in an unfamiliar context. I think Hutch's use of 'kind' twice suggests he isn't sure what this thing is. Whatever it was, 'parcel' could have been the meal. The time was about 2am, so he could have had it for a while waiting for Mary perhaps. It would fit with probably the last sort of time to get a meal of that sort.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

Let us dwell upon this point. Both Lewis and Maxwell said they saw Mary in the morning. Abberline said he interrogated Maxwell and was unable to break her story, and she was undeterred by the warning issued to her before her inquest testimony. She testifed:

"I spoke across the street, "What, Mary, brings you up so early ?" She said, "Oh, Carrie, I do feel so bad."
She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road."

What are the options?

1. Lewis and Maxwell were both mistaken or careless with the truth.

2. Maxwell did see Mary and, after vomiting up the content of her alcohol binged stomach, including the "hair of the dog", she bought a nice greasy piece of fish and picked up a client who killed her.

3. Lewis and Maxwell did see Mary, someone else was murdered in Miller's Court, and Mary returned to find the body and throw up after seeing that sight. But what about her hair colour? Dye could easily be shared between friends. But if Mary wasn't in the room she was renting, where was she, and why. This can only be conjecture, but I will draw attention to the following for consideration:

Hull Daily Mail
Nov 12, 1888


Just a little more to think about.

Cheers, George

Yes I think the only way that Maxwell and Lewis could have both been wrong, is if they were trying to cover up the timeline of events by confusing the police regarding her time of death.
Or they got the date wrong and this happened 24 hours earlier, in which case they are both correct but a day out with their observations.

Let's not forget however that Maxwell was part of the Lodging house bubble in that her husband was a deputy at 14 Dorset Street and it wouldn't be unfair to suggest that Maxwell may have had an ulterior motive regarding Kelly's time of death.

If for example, the killer was her husband, then she would need to supply him with an alibi by stating she went out to get breakfast for him and then saw Kelly alive.

In 1901 the circumstances of a murder that occurred in Crossingham's at 35 Dorset Street were deliberately covered up in order to confound the police. The only reason for doing this would be to protect the killer. It then suggests that the real killer was someone who was involved with the running of the lodging houses in the area.
If the killer was a stranger or an outsider, then there would be no reason to try and confound the police. But IF the killer is part of the bubble, then it's not too much of an exaggeration to suggest that the correct details of the murder of MJK may have been swept under the carpet in order to protect the person responsible.

Of course, IF Maxwell was telling the truth, then MJK's killer has to have been the man with whom she was seen talking to outside the Britannica at 8.45am, because there's no time for it to have been anyone else.

I would also like to throw another grenade into the hypothetical realm and suggest that IF Maxwell was correct and truthful and MJK WAS alive at 8.45sam and she had just thrown up on the street...perhaps she was pregnant..with morning sickness.

And perhaps the killer didn't know that.

And so he goes with her back to her room sometime AFTER 8.45am and then he murders her. But as he's mutilating her, he cuts into her and realizes she is with child and then he is angered because he has inadvertently murdered her child as well. But that's NOT what gets him excited and he feels a sense of disgust and then reflects that disgust by attacking her beyond belief.

Interestingly, Dr Barnardo was obsessed with trying to save the children from the slums, but he really didn't like prostitutes for their actions and their apparent recklessness and disregard for their procreating bodies.

But i digress...

It also may be the case that the killer DID know she was pregnant and then offered to help her...which opens the door to the killer being an abortionist who deliberately targeted the womb.

In effect, what Maxwell's statement does is to open the door for more potential suspects and takes the emphasis away from her having been murdered when 2 other women heard a cry of murder around the same time as each other.

Of course, ironically, if MJK WAS alive at 8.45am and then the killer went back to her room, the earliest she could have been murdered was 8.50am...BUT the killer would have needed TIME with her to carry out those mutilations and then escape the scene completely undetected.

That would then indicate that if it wasnt the man seen standing with her at 8.45am outside the Britannica, then it could have only have been either McCarthy or Bowyer because of the time frame.

There's one very peculiar fact that we tend to look over but bears real significance if Maxwell is indeed correct...

Bowyer claims he was sent to Millers Court by McCarthy at 10.45am...

However, a witness leaving the court states that when they left the court at 10.30am the police were already in attendance at the scene AND the police recorded the time they found the body as 10.30am

And so Bowyer is AT LEAST 15 minutes out with his timing.

The police were in attendance by 10.30am and so Bowyer had to of been sent around to Millers Court by McCarthy no later than 10.20am. From being sent around by McCarthy, knocking at the door, seeing the body, reporting back to McCarthy, both returning to the the scene and then Bowyer being sent for the police and then the police arriving would have taken at least 10 minutes.

So Bowyer would have been sent to collect the rent around 10.20am and NOT 10.45am as he states. (that's at least 25 minutes difference)

And so if Maxwell is correct, she goes back to her room and is killed AFTER 8.50am and the killer needs to have CLEARED Dorset Street before 10.15am in order to not be seen by Bowyer.

That's an absolute maximum time of 85 minutes with MJK at the very extreme end of possibility.

The thing is, that by believing Maxwell, it implicates that McCarthy and/or Bowyer knew more than they let on.

And of course, IF she was with child, then eating Fish and potatoes for breakfast may have been a craving for her.

In terms of Bowyer, he resided at 37 Dorset Street just a few yards from McCarthy's and so we can at least be relatively certain that they were both in Dorset Street the entire time.

Another interesting point regarding the murder at 13 Millers Court; why does the death certificate state "1 Millers Court" ??

Is that a general typo or admin error, or was it stated incorrectly?

I find it rather odd that it states she was murdered in a different room than 13 on her death certificate.

Was there a 1 Millers Court?

Or was it the same room and the 13 was incorrect?




RD

[etenguy]

Yes I think the only way that Maxwell and Lewis could have both been wrong, is if they were trying to cover up the timeline of events by confusing the police regarding her time of death.
Or they got the date wrong and this happened 24 hours earlier, in which case they are both correct but a day out with their observations.
RD

Hi RD

I am seldom so bold, but I have to say the suggestion that Maxwell and Lewis were both mistaken about the day seems ludicrous to me. The most horrific murder took place on the day they saw her - there is no way you get that day mixed up with another so close to the event. I think the question to ask here is why did the police suggest that as an explanation - surely the more likely mistake would be who they saw, not when. But of course Maxwell knew MJK so perhaps they had to go for the wrong day. But why? Why not challenge the doctors about whether a later time of death was possible? Surely not just because they were worried about challenging a doctor.

[Wickerman]

And as I stated previously, perhaps as a signal that Mary was with someone and did not want to be disturbed. Mary could have told him that.

c.d.

I can see these on the lowest rungs of society not burning wood, coal or dried horse manure until it is absolutely necessary. They will just go to bed, they normally did go to bed fully clothed, so with winter coming on the women especially will keep their clothes on.
What would necessitate Mary making a fire is if she is entertaining, the fire is more for the comfort of the client than anything else, and he is paying for it. Likewise, she is going to bed in a nightdress, or in her case a chemise.
Indications are that Mary was entertaining.