Did the killer burn his hat?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi David,

I may have been reluctant to open a new thread about Kelly, since there are already too many.

That's like starting a new dictionary because there are too many entries under "S"

[DVV]

Enjoy your digs too much to stop posting inconsistencies!

[Robert]

I'm sure that if the killer did set fire to his hat, he took it off first.

[DVV]

What a post, Robert! (vraiment le genre de truc qui me fera hurler de rire jusqu'à la fin de mes jours).
You're the best medicine on boards.
RESPECT!

[Robert]

Merci beaucoup!

[Stephen]

Do your research Gentlemen

Regarding the 'hat' in the fireplace. The Times newspaper was wrong. If you read the Kelly inquest and not the Times account you will see that Abberline does not mention a hat, he only states that there were "some burnt articles of womens clothing which were of no consequence".
In research, primary sources far out weigh secondary sources...which are often the cause of of people going off on false trails.

[Stephen]

Inquest

I mentioned the Times when I should have said Telegraph...either way, the newspaper accounts are wrong, the original and genuine inquest has been published and does not mention HATS.

[Sam Flynn]

Regarding the 'hat' in the fireplace. The Times newspaper was wrong. If you read the Kelly inquest and not the Times account you will see that Abberline does not mention a hat, he only states that there were "some burnt articles of womens clothing which were of no consequence".

..."burnt articles of womens clothing" do not rule out that a hat was amongst them, therefore we cannot say that the newspaper was "wrong", Stephen.

In research, primary sources far out weigh secondary sources...which are often the cause of of people going off on false trails.

It is equally easy to go off on a false trail by assuming that primary sources recorded faithfully every word. In the days of ink-pens (or even quills), and with nary a stenographer nor a tape-recorder in prospect, court officials couldn't possibly document all that was said. The sensible thing is to triangulate between sources, and to treat them all - official records included - with due caution.

[Stephen]

Newspapers and Courtrooms

Sam, As far as I know, the job of a stenographer was to take down precisely what was said, including oaths and curses that would later be deleted, this was a Court of Law and not the backroom of a a newspaper with reporters colouring reports up for the readers. The Inquest Report was Ad Verbatim.
Primary sources are the only true sources and if they lead people off on false trails then it was not the fault of secondary Chinese whispers.

[Sam Flynn]

Primary sources are the only true sources.

If by "primary" you mean "official" that is not necessarily true - neither of the Ripper case specifically nor history in general. There are plenty of important unofficial sources which we ignore at our peril. Official sources are hugely important, but they are neither verbatim, complete nor infallible - and all sources, whether official or unofficial, primary or secondary, should be treated with caution.

[DVV]

Hi David

The obvious question. Why would the killer want to burn his hat? Bear in mind that he needed to go out into the cold wet and windy night.

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer,
that's certainly a good question to ask...once we are sure that the killer did burn his hat.
As I already said, I know nothing about (LVP) hats. But since Harvey said she had left a "crepe bonnet" in Kelly's room, I'm not sure that the "rim of hat" found in the grate could be a part of it, which is likely to have completely burnt - unless some LVP crepe bonnets include a rim that resists cremation.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

If by "primary" you mean "official" that is not necessarily true - neither of the Ripper case specifically nor history in general. There are plenty of important unofficial sources which we ignore at our peril. Official sources are hugely important, but they are neither verbatim, complete nor infallible - and all sources, whether official or unofficial, primary or secondary, should be treated with caution.

Indeed,
all sources should be treated for what ithey are.
For medieval Ethiopia (take this example because I worked on it), an imperial chronicle would be called a "primary source", though it is obviously the work of an official flatterer. Being a primary source does not make it the most reliable document in all respects, and secondary sources sometimes (to say the least) do tell more. In fact, that's just a matter of confrontation and comparison.

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hi David

You know it's always baffled me how one can make a "fierce fire" from articles of clothing. Surely clothes would smoulder rather than burn fiercely? I can imagine Mary Kelly's room being a damp affair, any clothing there would also be prone to dampness. And yet the spout from the kettle had melted. Dosn't make sense in my view.

all the best

Observer

[Jane Coram]

HI,

Just to clear up the difference between mens and womens hats in the LVP -
My nan was a milliner and I used to help her make women's hats, and we often made Victorian/Edwardian hats for theatres and shows. (Great fun. )

There is such a difference between the male and female hat a the time, that no-one could mistake the two, even if the sources were accurate in saying it was a woman's hat.

Women's hats were built up over a wire frame, with a very stiff mesh base, and then a covering of other material stitched over the top and the fripperies put on. It was entirely hand stitched.

Men's hats were more generally just cut cloth for things like a flat cap, but usually pressed felt or moulded in one piece in some other material. The only exception was something like a top hat, which had a different construction.

Anyway, there is no way the two could be mistaken for each other, so unless Jack was a cross dresser, I sincerely doubt that any hat burnt in the fire was his.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Observer]

Hi Jane

how about those stiff deerstalkers?

Observer