|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | 
|
Hi ,
I have mentioned this before , on the old boards, but frustrated me , will try again.
Can any one reading these boards confirm to me two statements.
[a] Her eyes looked queer, like she was suffering from a heavy cold.
b] All muffled up , like a cold.
I believe the latter comes from Donald mcCormacks version of 1959,
But the former I am unable to trace, yet it was definetly quoted in a old publication.
The reason I am asking is with Huchinsons statement. Kelly said 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief
It would imply that she required the use of a hanky.
Therefore, if Maxwell observed that kelly , looked like she was with cold, that would be substanciated, by hutchinsons statement, and as these two witnesses, were independant of each other, one could suggest that both were telling the truth, and therefore kelly was killed after Maxwells sighting.
I have always felt this was a relevant point, and i had communications with Colin[Wilson] in 1975, refering to this point, he agreed it would be highly significant, if it could be proven that kelly was with cold.
In simple terms ir means.
If kelly had a cold on the night , or morning of her death, so much so . that she asked the astracan gent , or implied that she needed the use of a hanky, which she received, then how come Maxwells statement confirmed this, if she had been killed during night hours?.
Clearly no one is aware of such a statement from Maxwell, as a lot of files have gone missing since the late fiftys.
Yet the facts remain, simply because yours truely has read them, that the full confirmation of Maxwells statement, refers to the possibility of the cold. which is highly significant in pinpointing time of death.
Richard. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Lets hope Jack caught it. he at least deserved to sneeze his way into oblivion! |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 202
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I see a problem with the scenario in which MJK was killed after Caroline Maxwell saw her on the morning of 9 November. If she was actually seen by Maxwell, she was killed somewhere between 9 and shortly after 10 o’clock.
Remains of a meal of fish and potatoes were found in and about MJK’s body, which according to at least Dr Bond were consumed some 3 or 4 hours prior to death, meaning that she had eaten them at the earliest at 5 a.m. and at the latest at 7 a.m.. When Maxwell allegedly heard MJK tell her that she had ‘the horrors of drink’ upon her and had vomited, it was after 8 o’clock, by which time MJK had already eaten. That doesn’t fit with the fact that partly digested food was found on the crime scene. By the way, the fact that she would have eaten at all seems quite strange considering she had such a bad hangover that it made her throw up.
Take care,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi frank,
The food is a complete mystery, if she was killed after maxwells sighting, she would have had to have eaten, the meal early morning , which is unrealistic, but when did she consume this food, and where did she obtain it?.
she would have had to consume it between 11 am -midnight, for she seems to have sung for a hour, between midnight and 1am. and 1am - 2am seems a unusual time to consume a meal.
I must admit I find the whole episode extremely confusing, that is if mary Jane was the person found, if not who knows.....
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 431
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Guys...
The whole things fits together if we discount the testimony of Maxwell.
These facts mesh almost perfectly:
1. Corpse found in Mary's bed with meal eaten 3-4 hours before death.
2. Mary seen in pub at about 11 PM (clue: food available in pub). She could have also got the meal on her way home from Pub, making it closer to midnight.
3. 11PM plus four hours, more or less = @3AM
4. Progression of corpse's rigor consistent with TOD of @4AM.
Pretty conclusive to me. Maxwell is the only loose end.
Andy S. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 204
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
If, for the moment, we only focus on when it might have been consumed, the food isn’t that much of a mystery.
Assuming that Mary Jane was killed between 3:30 and 4 a.m., the food would have been consumed between 11 and midnight, which presents no problem at all.
If we would assume she was killed after Maxwell’s sighting, we might draw the conclusion that the woman seen by Maxwell and the body found on the bed weren’t one and the same, meaning it was either Mary Jane on the bed and another woman seen by Maxwell or the other way around.
Each of us has to decide for him/herself which of these possibilities seems the likeliest.
Take care,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 205
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
|
…and I see Andy has already done that. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 164
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Andy has neatly summed up the case for a pre-dawn murder and all that remains is the blood business in which Shannon is so interested. As I understand the argument, it seems to hinge on the fact that the first doctors on the scene reported a "pool of blood" as opposed to what they almost assuredly found, a pool of dried blood. Since the doctors of the era were well aware that blood flows freely, then begins to coagulate (this is mentioned with at least one other victim) and finally dries, I am confident they would have commented if they found that the blood was still fresh. Almost certainly the pool was of dried blood and the adjective omitted because it seemed unnecessary.
Don. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 207
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 6:38 pm: |
|
According to the Ultimate JtR Source Book at the inquest Dr George Bagster Philips referred to it as ‘a large quantity of blood’, something he might have done to distinguish it from a liquid pool of blood.
Good night,
Frank
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Dr Bond's declaration that "the partially digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken..." is wildy inaccurate. Kelly's last meal of fish and chips would take somewhere between an hour and a half, possibly less, at a minimum and two hours at a maximum.
Wolf. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 433
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Let's get this straight. A medical examiner who had little else to work with to determine TOD other than body temp, progression of rigor, and examination of stomach contents was "wildly inaccurate?"
Where are you getting this from? We don't even know how much contents were found or in what condition these contents were found. How can you give an opinion on the matter, much less one that purports to be more accurate than Bond's. I know from personal experience that after a large meal I can often still feel the presence of food in my stomach more than six hours after eating.
Andy S. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 229
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
Actually, medical forensics was pretty much an unexplored area. Body temperature was measured, by the doctors own admission, by touch (hands cold, arms warms, etc). Problem is that from the moment of death, the process of decomposition creates heat. External measures of body temperature can actually increase after death in some cases. The variation of these measures can be quite large from one case to the next, and make time of death estimates from them highly suspect.
Because we now are aware of this, internal body temperature is now taken, or the temperate is taken from the liver, as these readings show a much more stable function over time and give more accurate estimates. However, even these readings have wide individual variations and should not be used alone.
Progression of rigor is also widely influenced by many factors unknown to the medical profession at the time. Because they were unaware of such things (external temperature, blood loss, etc), the estimations that do not factor these things in must be considered unreliable.
Same thing with rates of digestion. Different foods are digested at different rates, and this is influenced by health, alcohol, etc.
All things considered, however, the presence of fish and potatoes does suggest an evening meal rather than a morning breakfast. And, neither of these are hard to digest, so it is unlikely that we're dealing with anything like 10 hours between her meal and her death. What we don't know, unfortunately, is when she actually ate that meal. It's a shame that a witness wasn't found to testify when she ate this meal.
By the way, it's unlikely your sensations are of the food itself. The brain produces the sensation of "fullness" based upon the nutrients required by the system. If you've eaten a big meal, you've got enough fuel for some time and the brain indicates you are "full", and so you "feel full". Damage to certain areas of the brain can cause people to "never feel full", no matter how much they eat.
Even if you don't believe the above, any input from the actual "food", could still be produced once the food moved out of the stomach and into the intestines (which is where most of digestion takes place anyway; the stomach is mostly a holding zone, with the stomach acids breaking the food down to mush so that the intestines can then extract the "good stuff"). What I need to look up is how long it takes, on average, for the stomach to empty it's contents into the intestines. Since the food was found in her stomach, this would give us a starting ground in terms of time between her meal and death. It would be all the better if we knew the time to move fish and potatoes out of the stomach if one has been drinking (as the reports about Kelly seem to indicate she had been).
- Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 434
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
Jeff,
There is nothing technological about observing body temperature, progression of rigor, and stomach contents. We are no better at these observation in 2004 than were medical examiners in 1888. If anything we are worse, since we tend to rely upon more technological means.
I am well aware that the three observation mentioned above are not extremely accurate, i.e. that many factors effect them. But it was a simple, and non-technological, procedure to record observations of these factors in cases where TOD was known and apply the resulting averages to cases in which TOD was unknown. The results would NOT tend to be terribly inaccurate overall.
But the real point of my previous post is this: for a writer in 2004 who has not seen the stomach contents in question, nor even read a detailed description of these contents, to say that an 1888 medical examiner's finding are "wildly inaccurate" is to me completely invalid.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 435
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:35 am: |
|
And while I am at it, let me make this point in general since it is passion with me.
We tend to discount or downplay observations in general made by these Victorian-era investigators. In fact, their powers of observation were keen since in many cases that is all they had to rely on. The fictional Sherlock Holmes is an example of the powers of astute observation, albeit an exaggerated example.
It is true that modern technology, if available in 1888, would have given us more accurate answers to our questions. But it is also true that we must not evaluate observations of Victorian-era investigators the same as we would evaluate our own observations.
Andy S. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 68
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Several years ago I undertook a three year study looking into the times of death of both Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly. I began by reading pathology texts then, when I knew what questions I needed to ask, discussed the information provided by Drs. Phillips and Bond with 3 different Pathologists here in Toronto.
After these discussions I contacted 100 forensic pathologists, all members of the AAFS, by e-mail to which exactly 50 asked for further information. In the end I had e-mail discussions with 15 forensic pathologists from all over the world. The information that they provided me with was used in my article Screams of Murder, which appeared in the July 2001 edition of Ripper Notes. It is from these knowledgeable sources that I was told that Dr. Bond's observations on the time it would take a meal of fish and potatoes was wildly inaccurate.
Perhaps Mr. Spellak's knowledge of forensic pathology is so vast that he sees himself as being above all the experts that I consulted. Perhaps he wouldn't mind offering up his credentials which prove that his education and experience in forensic pathology should supercede that of the 18 scientists that I was in contact with.
Wolf. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 440
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 7:07 pm: |
|
No need to get testy, Wolf. It's just not called for. I wasn't insulting with you.
Until now you never cited your sources (or if you did, I missed it). I still think it presumptuous of us to second guess a medical examiner 100+ plus years on when we have not seen the evidence ourselves.
I would like to know, however, how these pathologists you consulted were able to render an opinion since none of them had seen the stomach contents in question or even read a detailed description of them.
Cheers! And let's lighten up just a little, please!
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on March 03, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Andrew wrote:
"We tend to discount or downplay observations in general made by these Victorian-era investigators."
Mainly because when we do have the facts that they had and make decisions based upon modern knowledge, their conclusions and observations quite frequently have no connection with reality.
"In fact, their powers of observation were keen since in many cases that is all they had to rely on. The fictional Sherlock Holmes is an example of the powers of astute observation, albeit an exaggerated example."
I don't see why everyone in 2126 likes to assume that people around the turn of the millenium were so fragile and earth-bound. In fact, they did not have forcefield-projecting belts so they had to rely on their built-in resistence to injury flying abilities. The fictional Superman is an example of invulnerability and self-powered flight, albeit an exaggerated example.
Hope that's lightened up enough for you. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 441
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
Dan wrote:
I don't see why everyone in 2126 likes to assume that people around the turn of the millenium were so fragile and earth-bound. In fact, they did not have forcefield-projecting belts so they had to rely on their built-in resistence to injury flying abilities. The fictional Superman is an example of invulnerability and self-powered flight, albeit an exaggerated example.
Hope that's lightened up enough for you.
That's definitely light, Dan. I'm not sure what it means, but it's definitely light! 
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 443
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Wolf is going to love this one!
I've been trying to find where Bond estimated the time Mary's meal of fish and potatoes was consumed before her death. Several posts have indicated that Bond estimated 3-4 hours before death and I thought I remembered reading that somewhere as well. However, I cannot find such a statement in the official documents! Did Bond ever make such an estimate or is this a layman's estimate based on Bond's scant comments regarding the stomach contents? If this is a layman's estimate, then I defer to Wolf's findings [although Wolf himself seemed to concede that Bond had made some sort of estimate].
I may indeed have been laboring under a mis-assumption.
Andy S. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 69
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Andy.
Gee, Wolf, I'm no expert but I was just wondering what are your sources for this statement? This is completely new to me and I would be interested in finding out why you say this = no testy response.
"Let's get this straight. A medical examiner who had little else to work with to determine TOD other than body temp, progression of rigor, and examination of stomach contents was "wildly inaccurate?" Where are you getting this from? ...But the real point of my previous post is this: for a writer in 2004 who has not seen the stomach contents in question, nor even read a detailed description of these contents, to say that an 1888 medical examiner's finding are "wildly inaccurate" is to me completely invalid." = testy response. I do, however, apologize for my response as, in fact, I did not cite my sources.
"I would like to know, however, how these pathologists you consulted were able to render an opinion since none of them had seen the stomach contents in question or even read a detailed description of them."
There are several pieces of information that we do have that aided in the opinions of the experts.
1) A "recently taken meal" of "fish and potatoes & similar food."
2) Partially digested.
3) Found in the abdominal cavity, in the remains of the stomach and "scattered about over the intestines."
4) Dr. Bond's opinion that "...the partially digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken..."
Based on the type of food, (fairly easy to digest and, based on the poverty of the victim, not likely to be a large meal), and the observation that the food was only partially digested and weighed against the statement that it would take 3 to 4 hours for this to happen I was told that this was "wildly inaccurate." Basically it would not take 3 to 4 hours for fish and potatoes to become only partially digested.
"I've been trying to find where Bond estimated the time Mary's meal of fish and potatoes was consumed before her death....However, I cannot find such a statement in the official documents!
"
Try Dr. Bond's report to Assistant Commissioner Anderson dated 10 November, 1888. Ref. HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 220-3. This can be found in the Jack the Ripper A-Z, under Bond, Dr Thomas, and in the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Chapter 20.
Wolf. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 216
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
I’m afraid that on page 401 of The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook (paperback), Dr Bond profiles the killer and says the following about the partly digested food:
“… and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, …”
Dr Bond was officially asked by the police if he would “be good enough to take up the medical evidence given at the several inquests and favour him (Sir C. Warren) with” his opinion on the matter (page 400).
Take care,
Frank
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 444
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Thank you Frank for putting my mind at ease. I was sure I read that somewhere. When I said I couldn't find it anywhere in the "official documents" I meant those documents found on this website (it was my fault for not saying it that way). I don't have my Ultimate Sourcebook with me at the moment, but I'm sure that's where I read it.
This means that Wolf will have to put up with me sticking to my original statements regarding our view of Dr. Bond's evaluation. I'm sure Wolf won't mind though since he thinks I'm a fool, anyway.
Too bad. I would have loved to discuss it further. But I won't carry on a conversation with one who would rather not be civil.
Wolf, if you're still reading this I am sorry I offended you. I did not do so intentionally.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on March 04, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
I started this thread, in frustration, to try and asertain, where the Quotation' Her Eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a heavy cold' appears, McCormack seems to address it as 'all Muffed up like a cold'.
If this was part of a missing part of maxwells statement, as stated by me in the past, then hutchinsons quotation of kelly ' Oh I have lost my hankerchief ' is of vital importance, indicating that two witnesses independant of each other, made statements refering to a possible cold, which would have been impossible if she was killed at the time , most people believe at 4am
Regards Richard. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 71
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hi Andy.
I thought I was being civil. Intent is pretty hard to decipher when based solely on written posts but I assure you that there was no intention on my part in being terse, although I see how it could be read that way. I also don't think that you are a fool, far from it.
As this board has been started by Richard for his "did Mary Kelly have a cold?" It is not the right place to be discussing rate of digestion, TOD, Victorian versus modern pathology etc. I would be happy to continue this discussion on another board if you would like. I believe that there are more suitable forensic boards here on the Casebook. Choose one, or start one, and I will respond as soon as I am able.
Wolf. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 445
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:08 am: |
|
Thank you, Wolf. I'm glad we got beyond that.
I'll be glad to continue this discussion on the Mark Kelly threads, but I may not have much time this weekend.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 4:17 am: |
|
Andy wrote:
"I'm not sure what it means, but it's definitely light!"
It's specifically a jab at the idea that the police of 1888 possessed infallible deductive abilities just because the fictional Sherlock Holmes was written with that skill. Superman flies, but that doesn't mean you can.
Sherlock was a genius because A. Conan Doyle knew the conclusions he wanted and could put words into his mouth and play with the facts of the case as he saw fit (much like Cornwell tries, but I digress), not because of any actual superior powers of observation of the investigators at that time.
But then I guess if I have to explain the joke... |
allerteuerste
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
does anyone know wether hutchinson gave his testimony BEFORE or AFTER he had found out about sarah lewis´s?
in the first case his accounts would confirm sarah´s but if the latter was the case this might as well indicate that hutchinson was simply using sarah´s testimony to make his one look true. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Hutchinson made his statement after Lewis had appeared at the inquest. We'll never know whether or not 'he found out about Sarah Lewis's.' |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
