|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:09 am: | 
|
G'day,
Dr. Bond wrote that there was partially digested fish and potatoes in the body's 'abdominal cavity', (intestines?), plus similar food in her stomach.
I found a Website that said that food can remain 3-4 hours in the human stomach, then spend 3 more hours moving through the intestine. Her meal seems to have been moving from her stomach and through her intestine. All body functions stopped working between 3 and 4 hours after that meal.
If the cry of "OH MURDER" came from her lips at about 4:00am, it is likely that she had a late supper between 12:00 and 1:00.
If the cry wasn't hers and she was murdered at around 8:30a.m., she would have had an early breakfast of fish and chips at about 4:30 or 5:30a.m. Which is more likely?
It's a pity they didn't ask Maria Harvey if they ate together, or question this at her inquest. It could have brought police closer to knowing at exactly what time Mary Kelly was murdered. Thoughts please!
LEANNE |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
As a product of my anatomy course last summer and fall: The abdominal cavity is the cavity which holds the stomach, intestines and other abdominal organs. The ventral (front) side of the trunk is divided into the thoracic cavity, the abdominal cavity and the pelvic cavity.
I would think this would mean that JTR tore open her stomach and/or intestines and the food escaped into the surrounding abdominal cavity.
The speed at which food digests depends on the type and quantity of food involved. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Leanne,
I posted a response to a similar question on a related thread very recently. The main thrust of that posting was that once separated from its blood supply Mary's digestive system would have ceased to behave as normal. Indeed it wouldn't take long for it to cease functioning altogether.
The times you quote are in all likelihood based on the alimentary canal actually being inside a living person. The relationship between the type of food and its duration in the stomach (with due respect to Diana) becomes somewhat academic if the digestive system is torn out, damaged and slowly suffocating through lack of blood supply on a bedside table.
As Diana has correctly noted, Mary's stomach had been torn open and some of its contents were scattered *outside* the intestines and into the body cavity. You'll find further info on both points in my earlier posting.
A fish supper at midnight (or thereabouts) is still the most likely scenario, and would have as normal in Mary's time as it is as today. Whilst living in London I often observed that particular tradition myself!
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
G'day,
Thankyou both for your posts. I know this question has been discussed on these boards before. I am not claiming to be the first person to think of it as a way of pointing towards the time of Kelly's murder, but I don't remember reading what was decided, and thought it was worth it's own discussion board.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
G'day,
Quickly reading through Mary Kelly's timeline here on Casebook before I leave home to catch a train, on Thursday November 8 11:45pm Mary Ann Cox saw Kelly enter her room with the man with the pale of beer.
At 12:00 midnight Cox heard her singing still.
Is it likely that she was hapily enjoying her last meal? They couldn't have asked the man at the inquest, because he wasn't there. Thoughts please.
LEANNE |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 545
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
It is very useful to look at it in terms of time of death, and it was one of the main things I latched onto to help me.
Fish and potatoes is very easily digested if it is boiled fish and mash potato, if it is fried fish and chips then longer.
Surprisingly enough fish and chips was an easily obtained cheap meal at the time. All around the streets were houses where the fish and chips were cooked in people's living rooms and sold through the windows.
This happened all day and all night more or less.
I think that she almost certainly bought the meal in the early hours of the morning and ate it out, possibly in the pub or walking around the streets. An interesting (well I thought it was interesting) side note is that almost all food at that time was wrapped first in a bit of greaseproof paper and then in old newspapers. This is especially true of fish and chips. This tradition lasted until very recently when it was banned by some bright spark because of the ink in the paper getting in the food.
People have brought up on the boards whether Joe and Mary would have wasted money buying the newspapers that Joe supposedly read to Mary......didn't need to buy them.....they were the wrappers of food.
I was totally dissuaded from the post 8.30 am time for her murder by those fish and potatoes.
Mary was sick at 8.30.....I honestly can't see a poorly Mary rushing to the nearest purveyor for a portion of cod and a pennerth of chips as an early morning meal. Besides which it was said that she was going to buy some milk.........doesn't add up at all I'm afraid.
Good thread Leanne, maybe some oddities will come up that no one has thought of before.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
G'day Jane,
I spent the time it to took to write this post about half an hour ago, and when I checked for replies I couldn't find it so I'll do it again. Sorry if you find it floating around somewhere it shouldn't be!
I believe the newspapers were very cheap at the time so that everyone could buy them. Barnett had lost his job as a fish porter just before the murder of Martha Tabram and I don't think he would have wrapped oranges in newspaper.
Police didn't find empty milk cartons in her room. I am trying to find out how warm the ashes in her grate were when they sifted through them, to see if they could have been thrown in the fire.
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2185
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Don't forget that Mccarthy's establishment served food until the early hours of the morning. The young man who was seen shortly after the find of the body in Castle Alley with a plate in his hand said he was going to "McCarthy's in Dorset Street" to get his supper. That was around midnight.
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
G'day,
Hey, what are the chances that Mary Ann Cox thought she saw a 'quart can of beer' in 'blotchy face's' hand, but it was really a vessel that contained fish and chips? -Well it's worth a thought!
LEANNE |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 546
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Sorry I didn't do a very good job of clarifying the newspapers/food thing - and it was really only to point out that although as you rightly say, they were cheap it would have given them a greater variety to choose from! (We used to read the wrappings all the time when I was a kid......)
Unfortunately there are lots of misconceptions about how life was lived in the LVP in the East End, mainly thanks to films and literature that have perpetuated some rather strange myths and ideas about how it was back then!
In Mary and Joe's case as with every other poorest class person in that area, nothing was wasted, ever. The stale bread was saved to use as bread and milk for breakfast, soap would be used until there was nothing at all left of it and things like newspapers were cycled and recycled.
After they had wrapped such wet food as fish including live eels and meat and offal, the newspaper would then be used to light the fire. It would also have been saved by every single one of them as loo paper and taken with them when they went to the communal loo.
Actually as unlikely as it seems Joe would almost certainly have wrapped the oranges in newspaper to store them and as wrapping for customers in lieu of brown bags.
Almost all food finally found itself wrapped in a layer of newspaper.......whether it was cooked as a takeaway meal or was dry goods from a grocer. Up market shops would have had brown paper to wrap in, but even then they often used newspaper for some items.
It may seem unimportant to some, but I feel that unless we understand the minuitiae of the lives of the victims and possibly killer then really understanding what happened back then is even harder than it should be.
There was really quite a complex infra structure of interdependency at that time which is really very alien to most today.
The milk 'problem' actually comes under this umbrella as well. No cartons...... the milk would have been collected from either the shop or the milk cart in a billy can or jug or any old thing the customer had to hand. Nothing was disposable. So that begs the comment:
-If Mary said she was going to buy some milk, she would have had a jug or container in her hand that morning when she was seen by Mrs Maxwell. It's gaps in the testimony like this that really bug me!
It does of course mean though that there could have been a container in Mary's room that had contained the milk which had been emptied by the time of her death.
The next question is of course, if that is the case what did she use it on? The bread was still in the cupboard and unless she had drunk it (possible) where does that leave us?
It all seems a bit unlikely to me, which is why I go for an earlier time of death.
The point about Mr Blotchy is a very good one indeed though, although I suspect that the beer was in the can and the fish and chips was tucked inside his coat to keep them warm!
Of course if Mr Astrakhan did exist, maybe the parcel in his hand was a neat little package of
cod and chips twice!
Seriously though I do think that is almost certainly when Mary would have eaten her last meal.......with Mr Blotchy . Seems the most logical and fits in very well indeed with all the timing. She was pretty tipsy and alcohol is a great stimulator of appetite........so a takeaway in the wee small hours sits very comfortably with me.
I love this case don't you? Drives us all barmy sooner or later.
Jane
xxxxxx
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 547
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Sorry just a quick one.........your post really went well with mine.........mind reading?
Many people at the time like Joe and Mary would take their plates or a bowl to the pub or vendor to get the meal if they were close enough or went with the intention of buying a takeaway. Did it all the time myself as a kid for pie and mash! They were only wrapped up if it was a spur of the moment decision to grab a bite to eat.
Hugs Jane
xxxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
G'day Jane,
I think I remember something about a police attempt to find out where 'Mr Blotchy' bought his crate of beer, that failed. Does anyone else remember this? Perhaps he didn't have beer at all.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I thought it was Carrie Maxwell who was going for milk, for her old man's breakies.
Love,
Caz
X |
Alison Mowat
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
I think it is a very interesting case and that the suggestion of Mary having dinner with Jack is a good one. As though it was a leur of some sort. On some other evidence this website shows you get the feeling that Jack was killing people to send fresh body parts to doctors of that time who wanted to find more about the human body and cures for diseases so that is a very good motive as well.
Alison |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Leanne,
It seems plausible to me that Mary may have bought her last meal shortly after and with the proceeds from her "transaction" with Mr Blotchy-face (i.e. the man reported carrying the quart pail of beer at 23:45).
If Blotchy-face left her just after midnight and Mary took some time to get dressed (not to mention to freshen/sober up a little) she may have left her lodgings at around 12:45 to 01:00 to find an "eaterie" where she purchased and ate her final meal.
There were a number of places where she could have done so - the Britannia or the Queen's Head for example. It's intriguing that we have reports, albeit of questionable authenticity, that she was seen in or around both pubs that night.
Had she eaten her meal at either establishment (or at another - it doesn't really matter) and treated herself to another drink, this scenario would suggest that she could have finished her meal sometime between 01:30 and 01:45. Time enough for her to be back on the streets for Hutchinson's alleged sighting at 02:00.
|
Alison Mowat
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I think it is a very interesting case and that the suggestion of Mary having dinner with Jack is a good one. As though it was a leur of some sort. On some other evidence this website shows you get the feeling that Jack was killing people to send fresh body parts to doctors of that time who wanted to find more about the human body and cures for diseases so that is a very good motive as well.
Alison |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
G'day,
GARETH: 'It seems plausible to me that Mary may have bought her last meal shortly after and with the proceeds from her "transaction" with Mr Blotchy-face (i.e. the man reported carrying the quart pail of beer at 23:45).
TRUE!
ALISON: 'this website shows you get the feeling that Jack was killing people to send fresh body parts to doctors of that time who wanted to find more about the human body and cures for diseases so that is a very good motive as well.
FALSE! Where on this Website? I have NEVER believed that Jack was getting fresh body parts for doctors!
'Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet,
Her clothes all tattered and torn.
It had not been a spider that crept down beside her,
But Little Boy Blue and his horn.'
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 687
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi,
You know, I've always thought "fish and potato's" to refer to "fish and chips", which would suggest an evening meal. And, although I tend to believe that Mary was killed during the night, it has just occurred to me that there is a breakfast meal that comprises "fish and potato" as well. Fish cakes, which in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland anyway, is often had at breakfast. They are ususally made with leftover mashed potatoes and cod from the night before. Combine the two, make patties, and fry them in a pan (best if you include some onions, salt and pepper, as well ... yum!). Anyway, perhaps fish cakes as a breakfast meal is not common in the UK, but they were common in east coast Canada when I was young. Now that we've caught all the cod though, they probably aren't all that typical anymore.
- Jeff |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 568
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
HI Jeff,
It probably was fish and chips to tell you the truth, for a simple reason, you can eat them with your fingers. Fish and mash would have to have been eaten in the pub and although that is quite possible as Mary's last meal, fish and chips is more likely because you could eat them straight from the paper, walking along.
I have never in all my years heard of fish cakes being eaten as a morning meal. Although I am sure it happened somewhere, sometime!
It was usually bread and dripping or bread and milk in those days. So I have to say, very unlikely that Mary would have had that first thing in the morning and especially so after she had just been sick.
it does just go to show though how very different cultures are around the world and how the East End of Mary's day was a something far removed from even the rest of British society, let alone the rest of the world.
So I have to say on balance that I think she ate that meal just after midnight, maybe when Mr Blotchy went back with her.
Interesting insight into Canadas breakfasting habits. Made me feel quite peckish!
Hugs
Jane
xxxxx |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I am not sure about the east end, but up here in northern England fish cakes, also sometimes known as "patties" have long been served by fish and chip shops. Perhaps Mary got fish cakes and chips from the local chip shop and ate them on her way home, as Jane suggests.
I have never really heard of anyone eating fish cakes for breakfast, except for a crew of Indian sailors I once worked with.
Rgds
John |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 688
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
Thanks for the info. Fish cakes (or cod cakes), were common breakfast food in many of the fishing ports of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland because, well everyone had a dory (row boat) and most families were fishing families. Given the amount of fish that was about, and given the poverty of most people in the small towns, fish was eaten nearly every meal. Not only the relative poverty, but many communities, especially in Newfoundland, were isolated and were not connected by roads. The only way in or out was by sea. So, even if you had money, goods had to be imported, or shipped in, which made the price exceptionally high.
My grandfather used to tell us how when he went to school, the middle-class kids had bologna sandwiches while the poor kids had to suffer through lobster sandwiches! Lobster was considered "garbage food" because if you were poor, and lived on the coast, you would set your own traps. Obviously if you had to catch your own food, you must be poor. Interesting how such things are based upon "how much they cost" rather than "how good they taste".
Anyway, I suspect the difference in culinary delights boils down to the relative ease with which East Coast Canadians could obtain fish for "fish cakes" relative to those in East London.
Fish cakes can, however, be eaten by hand if they are fried relatively crispy. Similar to pan fried potatoes (or hash browns), but I admit, they would be a bit messy. Mind you, fried fish can be a bit messy to eat with the hands as well, depending upon how oily it is.
Anyway, as you both mention, if it's not a common breakfast food in the UK, or more importantly, if it was not a common breakfast food in East End London of 1888, then it's entirely irrelevant if fish cakes were a common breakfast food in another place and another time.
So, even though I tend to think the "post-breakfast time of death" is unlikely, I thought I should toss out the fish cake idea all the same.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 689
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
The fish and mash is combined, usually with onions, made into patties, and fried in butter in a fry pan. They are best if the potatoes are not mashed into "whipped" potatoes, but are still a bit lumpy and dry. Boiled potatoes crushed a bit with a fork sort of thing. They end up as patties (which John indicates is a northern England term for them), which you could eat with your hands. Salt and pepper go well with them, and it's common to have ketchup on them. It's a well known fact that you can eat anything if you put enough ketchup on it! ha!
That aside, however, this is all just recipe sharing now since from what you and John have told me, they are not commonly considered breakfast food in the UK. So, unless things have simply changed since 1888 (a distinct possibility), then fish-cakes is unlikely a viable alternative to fish and chips.
- Jeff |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 580
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Well Jeff,
Coming back down to earth with a serous bump....do you really want to know what Mary would probably have had for breakfast most mornings, when she could actually run to having one at all?
She would have used the stale bread up by pouring hot or cold milk on it and eating it as a kind of porridge......or bread and dripping......which was the left over fat and jellified meat juices with bits of hard black grit in from the burnt bits of meat.
Lucky girl............now you wouldn't swap that for nice crispy delicious fish cakes would you?
I do think though that the indicators have to point towards her eating that last meal just after midnight....nothing else makes much sense to me at least.
Love Jane
xxxx
You haven't half made me hungry you rotters.
xxxx |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 690
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I also do not find the idea of Mary getting up, getting dressed, being hungover but having breakfast (of either fish cakes or fish and chips) and a beer, then vomitting on her way home, changing back into her night clothes, and then being murdered (with enough time between the eating and murder to result in the doctor reporting her last meal as "partially digested"), as being more probable than her having an evening meal of fish and chips, either from the proceeds of her night's work (or as payment for services) and being murdered by a customer (possibly the one who provided the meal, but there's no obvious reason why her killer could not have been someone who enters the scene later). My, that is one long sentence just to say "I agree that her time of death appears to be more likely to have been during the night." ha!
I would think that "stale bread with milk and/or drippings" would be a sort of "home cooked" meal though, rather than one available at a pub? From the contents listed in Mary's room, it doesn't appear she had much in the way of preparing food, other than the kettle for tea. On the other hand, Joe does mention that he would occasionally bring home "meat and things", so they must have had some way of cooking over the fire. The "pans" used, however, do not seem to be listed anywhere. So, although we can infer some method of cooking was available to them from Joe's statements, we are left (as always) with the exact details missing.
Anyway, I suspect that breakfast was a luxury not often obtained by Mary or other residence in the East End, unless the workhouses provided some sort of porridge on the nights they stayed there?
- Jeff
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 581
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
HI Jeff,
Mary probably didn't cook much at home at all, it was a takeaway culture, or more precisely, gobble it up by the stall or eat it walking along culture.
Surprisingly enough though, the locals, even the moderately poor ones didn't have to eat that badly if they decided to spend their money on food rather than booze. Food was very cheap from the stalls......and goodness only knows how it was cooked and what the hygiene was like, but they seemed pretty tough in those days.
She probably did have something in the way of a saucepan or pot to cook in......and we don't have an exact inventory of the articles found in Mary's room, only a potted version. (sorry about the pun) I suppose that if poor Mary had been done to death with a cooking untensil it would have been mentioned, but why bother to itemise a pot or pan?
She would certainly have had a jug or a pot to fetch milk or beer in......or a dish that she used to get takeaways in from either the pub or from a vendor.
It really was a very peculiar culture in those days in the East End and unless you had first hand experience of it, very hard to come to grips with. (Not that I am 130 years old, but my Nan brought me up in an identical way to the way her mother brought her up, so it felt like I was alive then!)
Oh and the workhouses probably provided gruel for the poor blighters and possibly a hunk of bread and a mug of tea. I can guarantee that they got dripping at one meal or another though.....it's not that bad actually to tell you the truth.....sticks your jaws together a bit though!
Jane
xxxx |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
