|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through December 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Mrs. Maxwell & MJK's vomit:
Archive through December 11, 1999
Author: DD
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 06:06 am |        | I refer to Dr. Bond's report made Nov. 10 (Ref. MEPO3/141ff.151-7) Part #3 where he says:
"..and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered over the intestines..and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about three or four hours after the food was taken.."
Mrs.Maxwell claims that Kelly had vomitted just before she met her (circa 8am)She was found by Bowyer at 10:45am. If she DID have a meal, why was it not brought up with the drink? Or are we to believe that feeling as bad as she did, MJK scarfed down a meal only to be killed only 2 hours later? (given the time needed to eat and given her time to meet the Ripper)In either case, Mrs. Maxwell is very much mistaken. |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 09 December 1999 - 03:10 pm | | DD,
Excellent point! I haven't encountered this before. This would seem to affirmatively preclude the possibility of Maxwell being correct.
David |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 12:05 am | | Dr. Bond's estimate for the digestion of food is as wildly off as his estimate on the time it takes for rigor mortis to begin. A small meal consisting of fish and chips would be digested in about an hour, possibly a little longer. Considering the food was only partially digested (so death occurred less than an hour after eating) it would fit in with Mary Kelly vomiting in the road, feeling slightly better and then eating her meal sometime after 8:00 and then being murdered somewhere between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m..
So Mrs. Maxwell can't be ruled out as a viable witness.
Wolf. |
Author: anon
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 02:02 am | | | The big bad Wolf has got a real bee in his bonnet over this one, hasn't he? He often makes sensible posts, but then lets himself down with idiotic ones like this. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 08:12 am | | Hi, Wolf:
Have you thought about the fact that in the United Kingdom fish and chips are sold and eaten at night and not at 8:00 am in the morning? A last meal of fish and chips does then fit in with the window of 2:00 am to 4:00 am indicated by Dr. Bond not time of death of 9:00 am or later.
Chris George |
Author: Jill
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 10:07 am | | Hi Chris,
To have the meal at the late night hour is only an assumption. People call my eating habits sometimes very strange: I drink Coca Cola from the moment I get up and if I had a late night out, I'll skip healthy eating habits for salt chips, or leftover chinese take-out. But I know I'm certainly not the only one with these nasty unhealthy habits. So why couldn't MJK have done that (not that I'm saying she DID ate at strange times). Both explenations about the food seem plausible to me.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 10:57 am | | Hi, Jill:
You are talking about modern-day snacking which does not necessarily relate to the case of MJK.
Wolf is asking us to believe witnesses who are in the minority among the witnesses in seeing MJK alive in the morning (unlikely), and that she bought a fish and chip meal in the morning (unlikely yet again). Do two unlikelys make it so? I don't think so.
The fish and chip meal was most likely eaten right after purchase, at night. No vendor in 1888 would have been selling fish and chips at 8:00 am in the morning.
Chris George |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 05:59 pm | | C-G, "witnesses who are in the minority among the witnesses in seeing MJK alive in the morning"? Among what witnesses? Elizabeth Prater and Sarah lewis? because they were an everyday occurance, both women took no notice of the cries of murder at 4:00 am., (exactly like Mrs. Hewitt in the Tabram murder)and Prater changed her story at the inquest. Added weight was given to their testimony only because it almost tied in with Dr. Bond's ludicrous estimate of time of death. The testimonies of Prater, Lewis and the opinions of Bond didn't fit hand in glove, of course, but could be made to fit.
While were at it, what makes Dr. Bond the Victorian Aesculapius who's pronouncements should never be questioned, even when proved false? Why is it that with the murder of Annie Chapman, Dr. Phillips is not granted this same honour? Surely Elizabeth Long, John Richardson and Albert Cadosch are all either lying or mistaken considering their testimony was at odds with the medical findings.
I am not an expert on the breakfast habits of the denizens of the Victorian east End but it would seem to me that no one can say with 100% certainty that no vender would sell fish and chips at 8:00 am. None? Not even one? Ever? I therefore find it hard to concede to you that it is "unlikely".
Anon, "idiotic posts like this". I remember a time when any suggestion that Elizabeth stride was not a Ripper victim was treated with scorn. The inclusion of Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim? Laughable. Of course the Dear Boss letter and post-card are genuine! In my, almost 28 years of ripper study, I have seen many changes to the widely held beliefs on the subject, changes that are accepted today because someone decided to pose a question and then find the answer. There will always be those who will ridicule the questioners, perhaps out of fear or laziness or because they are just unable to itellectually grasp new concepts, it just seems to be part of Human nature, they call it the Tall Poppy Syndrome.
I don't have to share my beliefs or the fruits of my research with anyone, but I do try, in a small way, to expand the knowledge of those who read these boards. I suppose that I could stop contributing and just do what you do, hide in the weeds, never contribute anything of value to the discussions, attack those I don't like or who say things that I don't agree with but frankly that's the cowards way and it's not in my nature. Your attacks on the people on these boards, and I'm thinking of Caz here, are the actions of a little, tiresome bully. Go away little man.
Wolf. |
Author: anon
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 08:39 pm | | Dr Bond certainly did make a few odd pronouncements but I would never say that his estimate of the time of death in the Kelly case was 'ludicrous.'
In the case of Annie Chapman, if you had done your homework Mr Wolf you would have realised that he made a climbdown on his estimate of the time of death, accepting that it was probably later than he had estimated. Or in your 'almost 28 years of ripper study' had you missed this rather important point?
The suggestion that Stride may not be a Ripper victim has been in the public forum a lot longer than you have been interested in the subject. All suggestions in this contentious field of study are treated with scorn by someone. Likewise the suggestion that Tabram was a victim has been around for ages, it dates back to 1888.
The changes in 'widely held belief' that you claim to have seen are due to the writings of various allegedly informed authors, except for those where new facts have corrected errors, and they are not subject to argument.
You don't have to share your beliefs with anyone, but you are certainly not backward in constantly repeating them on these boards. Who are you trying to convince, yourself?
As for 'expanding the knowledge of those who read these boards,' I have yet to see you add one scrap of new information. There has been plenty of your opinion, but nothing new.
Ah well, I'm off back to hide in the weeds. After all, I am a tiresome bully and I'm frightened that a big boy like you will come along and scare me. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 09:27 pm | | ....is there any point to this?
...is this getting us anywhere?
..does this really matter?
Wolf, your input is always an interesting read and Anon, we all are not trying to be 'Thee repository of Ripper lore'
(I'd know that attitude anywhere)
....what did Anderson say?...."the amount of crap that's been written about the Ripper would sink a Dreadnought"
How very prophetic....
Have a good weekend, guys
Jon |
Author: NickDanger
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 10:23 pm | | I, for one, would like to congratulate DD for spotting an important point that most of us had simply missed. It was right there all the time. Whatever one's opinion on Wolf's theories, I think that DD's contribution should be acknowledged. Well done.
Regards,
Nick |
Author: Calogridis
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 12:17 am | | Howdy Nick & Master Debaters,
Although I think DD's math is very accurate, isn't it possible to only bring up part but not all of the meal? In this case, these calculations would be moot. Assuming of course that Mary ate like a football player that night.
I tend to agree with Chris that fish & chips would be an unlikely meal at 9 am, but then again I never had the pleasure of an East End breakfast.
Still and all, good work DD! That's keeping your thinking cap on. Just another good reason to demolish Mrs. Maxwell's testimony.
Why would the Ripper need to build a roaring fire if he was operating at 9 am? If it's to provide light to work by, his eyesight must have been really bad.
Cheers....Mike |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 12:36 am | | Wolf:
The testimony of the persons who saw MJK in the morning represent "outliers" that do not conform with the numbers of other people who knew her and did NOT see her walking around in the morning. In my opinion, and the opinion of Stewart Evans and other authorities on the Whitechapel murders, those reports are erroneous.
So, as I said before, you are relying on testimony that is questionable and not in keeping with the observations of the hundreds of others who lived in the vicinity of Miller's Court who did not see her in the morning. Then you couple that with a fish and chip meal which you say would have been available in the morning, which I tell you was unlikely to have been sold at that time of day in 1888. Then you add your naysaying and downgrading of Dr. Bond's opinion. . .
So who is in the minority here or rather should I say who is mistaken, you who make assumptions and deny the probabilities, or whom?
Chris George |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 06:49 am | | Dear Everyone,
I'm afraid that the point made by DD is completely wrong and totally valueless, for the simple reason I didn't think of it first!
Its comments like DD's that reinforce the value of these boards, a thousand people can look at a subject and see nothing new and then someone comes along and picks up on something we should have noticed years ago. Of course it doesn't prove anything - but it does give us something to think about.
Fish & chips are prepared in bulk, not as an individual meal. The chances that MJK found someone willing to cook a single portion of F&C is pretty remote. The normal breakfast in those days was bread and scrape and tea. Hot meals were kept for later on.
Questions: Where was the nearest Fish & Chip shop to Dorset St?
In my opinion MJK was dead at 8.00AM and had been dead for about one or two hours. I wrote an article for Ripperologist called 'The Magical Witnesses' in which I discuss the statements made by Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: A.M.P.
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 07:56 am | | Hi Chris, Bob and all
Bob: I'm not sure whether it was the nearest fish and chip shop to Dorset Street, but interestingly enough there was one at 19 Hanbury Street, (next to the Weaver's Arms pub). The proprietor was one Nathan Lepman. You could walk to the place in about three minutes from Miller's Court.
Most modern fish and chip shops open for business in the middle of the day. Whilst in agreement with Bob and Chris that fish and chips is normally taken as an evening meal, and is far more likely to have been eaten by MJK at night, I wouldn't like to say for certain that there were no such shops serving meals at 8 a.m. Given that shop hours at the time were unregulated, and that many local market workers were up and about very early (by 5 a.m.), who is to say that some enterprising fryer didn't open up early for morning business?
Many (majority?) of Whitechapel denizens had no cooking facilities of their own beyond simply toasting things over a fire. Therefore there was always a good trade for low budget eating places, such as fish & chip shops and the numerous cheap restaurants and coffee rooms listed in the street directories. Best Wishes. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 09:11 am | | Hi, A.M.P.:
Yes I know we can't be 100% certain of anything in this case, but my point is that Wolf is trying to string together a number of improbabilities and then say he has a case.
While we cannot be 100% that MJK did not purchase and eat fish and chips at 8 a.m. on November 9, if the fish and chip shop was at any remove from Miller's Court it makes it more likely that more people would have seen MJK. . . . which they did not.
I realize you were not addressing the question of whether MJK ate the fishy compestibles at 8:00 am but rather answering Bob Hinton's point about the probable location of the nearest fish and chip shop. Interestingly Hinton's book, "From Hell: The Jack the Ripper Mystery" shows there is now a fish and chip shop next to the blocked doorway in Goulston St. in the former Wentworth Model Dwellings where the infamous graffito was chalked. :-) Nice book by the way, Bob, with plenty of "food for thought"! I am reviewing your book in the new issue of "Ripper Notes."
Chris George, Editor
Ripper Notes
Casebook Productions, Inc.
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/conference.htm |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 09:46 am | | Hi All,
Quoting from a copy of Mayhew's London, 'The solids, according to street estimation, consist of hot-eels, pickled whelks, oysters, sheep's-trotters, pea-soup, FRIED FISH, ham-sandwiches, hot green peas, kidney puddings, boiled meat puddings, beef, mutton, kidney, and eel pies, and BAKED POTATOES. In each of these provisions the street poor find a MID-DAY or MIDNIGHT meal'.
I could find no evidence that a meal of fish and potatoes would have been served in the general way for breakfast.
However, the public houses in the City and East End of London which supply the market traders with their early morning beer and food would have been open for business from about 5am, as indeed they still are today, ie outside regular licencing hours. And I also found another quote in Mayhew's.
A fried fish-seller called Jack tells us "I served the public-houses and soon got known....Somehow, I got the name of 'Fishy' then, and I've kept it ever since....I've gone into a room in a public-house, used by mechanics, and one of them has said: 'I'll stand fish round, gentlemen'; and I've supplied fifteen penn'orths....."
Now, I suppose it's just possible that 'Fishy' and co could have found a demand for their wares among groups of market workers gathering in the pub for their first ale of the day and needing some hot food inside them. But as I say, I haven't managed to find any anecdotes to confirm or deny this yet.
But do we need to find an actual fish and chip shop for the source of Mary's meal in the light of the above?
Love,
Caz |
Author: A.M.P.
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 10:20 am | | Chris: Thanks for your comments. You are correct in stating that my prime reason for posting was in response to Bob. In fact, how and where Mary Jane obtained her meal of fish and chips is a side issue, since as you imply, it is the time that the meal was eaten that is the important thing here.
Caz: Well dug out! No, we don't need actual f&c shops since as you have discovered, pubs also served food. Furthermore, how about the local cafes and restaurants serving kipper or herring breakfasts with some kind of potato? Trouble is, as Chris points out, all this increases the chances of a witness seeing MJK buying or eating her meal - and we don't have such a witness.
Best Wishes |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 12:46 pm | | Re: Chippies
Regarding early morning meals, do we know that MJK's last meal was fish and chips? Doesn't the PM just mention potatoes?
There've always been caffs open all night or very early especially in the areas served by markets. Micks Cafe in Fleet Street was open all hours for the print workers and there were other places near Smithfield and Billingsgate. In Greenwich and Deptford during the '50's there were chippies open very early. Even Manzi's Eel and Pie Shop ("Watch them wiggle while you eat 'em") was open before 6am.
Peter. |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 01:47 pm | | Hello All !
I am with Calogridis on this point. Surely a meal can be taken, then after a few hours or so if the person were to vomit it does not necessarily mean that the stomach had been emptied or that portions will not have already been passed through to the intestines.
I think the question of where Mary had actually taken her meal and when, is a very interesting one. Mid-night to 2:00am seem to be the general consensus, is this right? We have quite a few details of Mary's last evening, entertaining JB for a short while, singing at 1:00, going out, bringing home one-or-two men, etc., singing again later, yet no report of her taking the meal of fish and potatoes. Did they actually eat "chips" ?
I don't think the meal either proves or disproves the witness sightings. All we can gather for sure is the fact that it was taken a certain time before her death. Other factors require consideration for the validity of the witness actually seeing MJK. Mrs. Maxwell appeared certain that it was Kelly she actually saw, and it was on 'that' morning. I don't understand why she would say such a thing if she knew it contradicted and flew in the face of all other evidence and known movements. Could someone shed any more light, or confirm when the statement was taken, by whom and under what circumstances ?
Jeff D |
|
|
|
|
