the fire in MJK's room

[tnb]

Apologies if this has been done before but I have looked around and can't see it anywhere.

After years of interest in the JtR case and reading up on most of the various theories, I have decided to step out of the proverbial shadows and attempt drawing a few conclusions of my own...

Like many others on here I see MJK as a troubling part of the case. One way or the other I can't help thinking this final (?) or otherwise 'Jack' murder holds the key either to unlocking the others (the old 'why the last one' debate) or to helping flush out some of the red herrings (Barnett, Hutchinson?) as far as the earlier murders if it can be shown it was not necessarily the work of the same killer (the view I am beginning to come around to)- although obviously this isn't the same as saying they weren't perhaps responsible for MJK's death (a terrible enough leacy in itself).

Anyways- enough waffle. My question, for now, is just how much do we know about the fire in MJKs room? I may have missed something, but everything I have read about this fact (minor, perhaps) seems to be either second hand (ie 'detectives found a raging fire in the grate') and/or extremely subjective (ie 'it must have been burning all night'- why? how could they tell?)

What are the- contemporary- facts here? Can we say for certain that the fire MUST have been burning all night (in which case it certainly does seem odd that no-one else in or around Miller's Court noticed it)? It all seems to hang on the kettle, but where exactly was this kettle, was it in the fire? I don't seem to be able to find anything conclusive on this point (sorry if I've just missed it).

Is anyone on here enough of a pyromaniac to have any idea how long a (presumably) cheap victorian kettle spout might take to melt (or, as seems more likely to me,simply to break along a poorly repaired faultline?)

In short, and this is the way I am thinking, is it perhaps the case that the intensity of the fire, like Dew's blood-soaked floor and hanging entrails, was one of those details exaggerated by the horror and shock of the scene and since passed down into folklore in a slightly OTT fashion?

Also, anyone got any theories on the fire, either way? It seems to be one o those details a lot of theorists allude to without really examining it, as if something should hang on it but they're not sure what? Personally, and I apologise that I can't remember the name of the author off the top of my head, but I tend to agree with the author of the article on here 'time is on my side' suggesting that Mcarthy doctored something during the 'missing' time between MJK's discovery and the landlord's arrival (after Bowyer) at Commercial Road- could he have set the fire, or at least ramped it up to destroy something in time?

Many thanks for any replies, and hello I suppose!

[Archaic]

Did the Tea-Kettle Spout Really Melt?

Hi, tnb; I think this is quite a good question! I too have wondered about the supposedly 'melted' kettle-spout, and wondered if it was a caused by a fatal combination of being ancient, cheap, and improperly repaired.

I have seen many antique metal tea-kettles with repaired spouts. It's especially noticeable on Copper Kettles, as the silvery-white solder is quite visible against the copper.

I don't know if an open fireplace would concentrate its heat to such an extent that it could literally melt metal... maybe somebody else knows? I'm also trying to remember if this particular factoid was in the police account, or only in the newspaper- if the latter, it could be a bit of an exaggeration. Let's see if someone comes along and tells us.

Best regards, Archaic.

[babybird67]

hi tnb



good questions. I dont have the answers, newbie here myself, but welcome, nice to meet you, and i look forward to someone more knowledgeable passing by to answer.

[halomanuk]

Hello Archaic,

Yes the kettle spout did melt due to some terrific heat in the fireplace,there are several accounts of this via police reports and comments.

There are no real reasons what could have caused this but reasons range from the lodgers clothes to MJKs' heart or body fat.

[smezenen]

What evidence do we have that the kettle wasn't melted before that night. Could it have melted on another occasion? I suppose Barnett could have given us an answer to that.
My point here is that clothing doesn't burn in the same manner as wood. as an experiment i just burned some old clothing in my wood burning stove. and here is what I came up with. Unless you use an accelerant like kerosene clothing burns slower and not so hot, mostly it just smolders .
There are only 3 reasons I can think of to start the fire in Mary's room.
1- heat 2- light 3- destroy evidence.
It was cold outside and Mary's boots where found near the fire so lets assume that Mary lit the original fire for heat to dry her boots and heat the room. Along comes Jack and he puts clothing into the burned down fire for reason 2 or 3 or possible both. Its early in the morning and dark so burning the clothing for light seems to be the logical reason, it would have produced a low flame that would give off enough light to do his work but not be seen from outside thru the curtain.

[Supe]

tnb,

Yes, it has been discussed at length and some of those old threads are still lying around. But, to quickly summarize the situatiuon with the kettle, almost assuredly what was meant is that the solder holding the spout to the body of the kettle had melted. Cheaply made kettles would have used solders with a low-melting point as that made manufacture more cost efficient.

The physics of the matter is that any kettle, well made or not, will suffer damage if left on a stove without water. The water within acts as a heat sink but if left on the fire and the water boils away there is the possibility for warping and any soldered joints separating. Nor does a fire have to be raging. Indeed, no one would place a kettle on a raging fire. It is heated with the coals from a once raging fire. which as we know from backyard barbecues are quite hot enough to grill a stea--or melt solder.

As to how they knew the spout separated that morning one may assume that when kettle and spout are in close proximity on the coals and there are possibily fresh rivulets of melted solder on the kettle that it happened recently. Moreover, the utility of a kettle without a spout is limited and while one might just save a previously separated spout for decorative purposes, one is unlikely to store it next to the kettle on a bank of hot coals.

Hope this helped.

Don.

[babybird67]

Don

thank you very much for that enlightening post.

[smezenen]

Ok, so kettle and spout are in the fireplace but separated so that would be conclusive evidence that the damage occurred that night. The next question we need to answer is was the kettle and spout found on top of the ashes or buried. What we may discover by answering this is, was the kettle put on the fire before or after the clothing.

If the spout is under the clothing ashes then the kettle was on the coals before the cloths where burned. The kettle would have been placed there by Mary or her visitor. It would indicate that Mary intended to use hot water for some reason (tea, coffee) and was not planning to fall asleep unless someone she trusted was still in the room and awake. This would also debunk the break-in theory.
If the spout is on top of the ashes then we know it was placed there after the clothing, and we can deduce that the killer must have put it there to heat water for some use., because why would MJK be burning her own cloths. We can also say that MJK was most likely dead when the kettle was put on the fire. in this case is the kettle still in existence? In the custody of police as evidence hopefully. Could there possibly be finger prints left on the handle that may one day lead to an identification of the people that handled the kettle? I understand someone recently found fingerprints on Hutchinson's statement. wouldn't it be pretty incriminating to find the same prints on the kettle. Of course if it exists but not in police custody then too many people would have had a chance to handle it over the last 150 years making fingerprinting impossible.

[Graham]

Why is the fire in Kelly's room so seemingly important? It was November, it was cold and damp, she had to keep warm, she fancied a cup of tea so needed to boil her kettle. What's so incredible and/or wondrous about that?

In days gone by people kept their kettle on the boil more or less all their waking hourss, both for their own and other's refreshment.

Fingerprints on the handle of the kettle? What planet are you from, Smezenen? Fingerprints in 1888? Fingerprints had to wait another decade or so before they were recognised as serious forensic evidence. And if there really were fingerprints on the kettle, then there'd have been fingerprints all round the room, so why not just arson Millers Court in its frigging entirety? Jeez...

150 years since 1888? I make it just 121, actually.

Good night and God bless,

Graham

[smezenen]

Why is the fire in Kelly's room so seemingly important? It was November, it was cold and damp, she had to keep warm, she fancied a cup of tea so needed to boil her kettle. What's so incredible and/or wondrous about that?

In days gone by people kept their kettle on the boil more or less all their waking hourss, both for their own and other's refreshment.

Fingerprints on the handle of the kettle? What planet are you from, Smezenen? Fingerprints in 1888? Fingerprints had to wait another decade or so before they were recognised as serious forensic evidence. And if there really were fingerprints on the kettle, then there'd have been fingerprints all round the room, so why not just arson Millers Court in its frigging entirety? Jeez...

150 years since 1888? I make it just 121, actually.

Good night and God bless,

Graham

Im from earth and since you want to get personal. please try to read the post before you comment, if you can read. I stated that IF the kettle still existed in police evidence that finger printing could now be done and any results could be compaired with other finger prints found on such things as letters sent to the press and more interestingly the finger print on George Hutchensons statement that is believed to belong to him. As far as 121 or 150 years it was a generalization if you need that big word explained to you go ask your mommy.

[Graham]

I strongly suggest you read more about the case, my friend.

Graham

[smezenen]

I strongly suggest you read more about the case, my friend.

Graham

Really, ive been studing the case for 22 years what did i miss? what about my post doesnt fit in with the case? or are you just one of those people that have to put down everyone that posts something you dont agree with?

[perrymason]

Hello all,

The fire that Mary had going in the early morning of December 9th was likely not large, nor bright, ...at least up until roughly 3am. Despite the suggestion of Inspector Abberline.

He based that on the articles found semi-consumed by fire, the fact it was warm to the touch around 1:30pm on the 9th, the amount of ash in the hearth, and the melted spout on the kettle. However there is no indication that the spout was melted that night, Barnett is not asked about his knowledge of when that may of happened on record, the articles found in the ash were obviously not fully consumed by the heat or flame they were exposed to, Mary lives alone in the room now and may not have emptied the hearth for some time, a low fire without emitting much light or heat would stay warm to the touch for many hours after it has "peaked", and we have a few witnesses to the rooms condition that night off and on until 3am, all that suggest the room was dark by 1:30am.

Elizabeth observes the room at 1:30am through the cracks in the partition wall, Sarah enters the court almost opposite Marys room and with a clear view of the 2 storey whitewashed wall opposite her windows that light would reflect off, and Mary Ann is in and out until 3am.

It would seem that if there was a spout solder melting fire that night, it happened after 3am, or there wasnt one.

No big deal in the big picture of the investigation, but it does raise an interesting question as an aside...if the fire was low when he arrived, how did the killer imagine it would completely burn up the items he placed on it? He shouldn't have, if thats the case, he should have expected smoke instead of flame. I just wondered if the chimney from Marys room was something that could be seen from the street, and whether he may have intended to cause some grey/white smoke.

Best regards all.

[smezenen]

Very good observations Michael, as always. Too add a little bit here about the fire, when I burned some old clothing in the wood burning stove the other day I started with a wood fire that was in my judgment large enough to dry wet leather boots and let it burn down to red hot coals that where just ashing over, that took about 25 minutes, I then put in 2 cotton T-shirts, a denim over shirt and an old ball cap. it took about 3 minutes before the fire flared but it quickly died back down, about 3-5 minutes, leaving the majority of the clothing smoldering. When I checked the ashes 4 hours later I found that the wood coals underneath the still smoldering ball cap brim where still hot. The brim never did burn completely. Also when the clothing was smoldering it did produce a good bit of smoke as you suggest.

[perrymason]

Very good observations Michael, as always. Too add a little bit here about the fire, when I burned some old clothing in the wood burning stove the other day I started with a wood fire that was in my judgment large enough to dry wet leather boots and let it burn down to red hot coals that where just ashing over, that took about 25 minutes, I then put in 2 cotton T-shirts, a denim over shirt and an old ball cap. it took about 3 minutes before the fire flared but it quickly died back down, about 3-5 minutes, leaving the majority of the clothing smoldering. When I checked the ashes 4 hours later I found that the wood coals underneath the still smoldering ball cap brim where still hot. The brim never did burn completely. Also when the clothing was smoldering it did produce a good bit of smoke as you suggest.

Hi smezenen,

That larger fire that had died down to a smouldering one is what I think we are looking at here as well.

Some people think this is incorrect, but I believe that Mary and Maria did laundry Thursday afternoon in her room, and that they had a fire that could boil water while they did. When Maria leaves, and later Mary goes out, the fire is left untended until at least the time when Mary and Blotchy arrive, and the light that was noticed for some time until 1:30am was described as "candle light".

I use the knowledge that they did spend that afternoon in the room, Maria's statement,....the presence of folded laundry items in the room, the fact that the tin bath is not fully pushed under the bed out of sight, the fact Mary gave Mary a few coins that afternoon, and the proximity of the pump to Marys room.

It would mean that a larger fire was going during the day Thursday, and it was hot enough to boil water at that time.

Since there is no indication that any witness saw any kind of bright light or large fire in that room that night....and since there is a real possibility if they did laundry that there was a fire to boil water that afternoon...my guess is that the large fire died down and was left untended until 11:45am on the 8th when she returns, and it never again became a large fire after she arrived.

That would also mean that the items were not likely burned for "light" for the killer, they would not add much in terms of heat as smoldering fabric items, and that the killer may have been trying to burn something of the victims spitefully...in which case it would suggest he didnt that know the items werent Marys.

The kicker for me is that Abberline and some of his hand picked "crew"...Reid and Godley among them, returned for a second sifting of the ashes Saturday morning. Since the only items found on Friday are the only items we know of that could be identified in the ash, it would seem a second inspection of the same ashes was unwarranted if looking for more traces of clothing. They could have been looking for something much smaller, maybe a fragment of something....a letter, paper, currency, stamps....

Best regards smezenen as always