Did the killer burn his hat?

[DVV]

Hello Jane Coram,
thanks for these informations about hats.
However, I'd like to remind that I don't "want" Jack to have burnt his hat; I want to point out the fact that a "crepe bonnet", on the one hand, and the "rim of a hat", on the other, do not seem to match.
But if a LVP crepe bonnet can have a rim similar to a hat's, the problem will be cleared.

Amitiés,
David

[Roy Corduroy]

What problem?

[DVV]

Question asked on this thread.
What a problem...

Amitiés,
David

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi David,

Back in that day all men men wore a hat. So he would not want to burn his hat in there, because then he would have to make his escape bareheaded. That would be ultra-suspicious.

Roy

[DVV]

True Roy, and I don't want to build any scenario on sand (though I'm a little bit tempted...at night...).
Your objection is like Observer's, and reasonable to me.
Still the remnants found in the grate do not indisputably seem to be those of a crepe bonnet.

Amitiés,
David

[Jane Coram]

Hi Observer,

Must admit I've never made a deerstalker, but I suspect that they were a stiff canvas base with a tweed outer cover and a lining. They possibly could use a wire for support. Having said that they were a very distinctive design and still very different from woman's hat in structure. So I reckon that let's old Sherlock off the hook as well. Lol.

Hi DVV,

A crepe bonnet, is a typical ladies hat of the time - the crepe being the material it was made from. It's a soft, thin, but surprisingly heavy fabric that drapes and hangs well, because of it's weight. It was used a lot in the 20s and 30s for evening dresses for the same reason.

I'm not quite sure why Jack would want to burn his hat anyway, even if he did wear one and what relevance it might have to the case. But to answer your question - a crepe bonnet was a type of ladies hat, with or without a brim. I'll see if I can find a picture of one and post it up.

Hugs

Jane

xxx

[Jane Coram]

One Victorian ladies crepe bonnet.

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

One with a brim. Sorry the photo is a bit small.

xxxx

[Stephen Thomas]

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.
u

Hi Observer

My thoughts entirely. Sounds like a surefire way to fill the room with smoke. Unless that was actually a can of petrol Mr Blotchy-face was carrying.

[Sam Flynn]

You know it's always baffled me how one can make a "fierce fire" from articles of clothing.

You don't - you make it from coal or wood. Afterwards, you can throw clothing on it if you like.

I don't think it's mooted anywhere that the fire was fuelled solely by clothing.

[DVV]

One with a brim. Sorry the photo is a bit small.

xxxx

Thanks Jane,
the brim seems so thin...

Amitiés,
David

[Jane Coram]

Hi DVV,

Bonnet brims could vary from very narrow to ridiculously wide, depending on the fashion at the time. The cream bonnet shown there would probably have been quite old fashioned in 1888, but possibly worn still by old ladies who hadn't quite caught up with the fashion! Just type Victorian ladies bonnets in on Google Image and you'll see just how varied they were!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[perrymason]

Hello folks,

It would seem that the predominant reason for intimating that there was a "fierce fire" at all, or one generating high heat,... is the melted kettle spout.

We do not know that the spout was melted that night,.. nor do we know how long that might have taken, if for example it was suspended over a low fire for a long period of time. Barnett was not asked,... or it is not indicated in known documents that he was asked,.. about that kettle spout.

Since the remains of the hat and rim were present in the ash, as well as remnants of clothing fabric, it would seem that articles were not placed on the heat at its most intense, if indeed there was any intensity to it at all that night, nor did the placing of the articles fan the fire to the extent it would reach higher heat and brightness levels,...because they were still discernable items, and partially intact. Fabric would reduce to brittle ash on a hot fire....Ive tried it with wool, velvet and raw cotton.

So, ....whats that add up to? They probably werent used to increase the available light in the room.

Since the speculation on the fire was two-pronged,... in that there was a large fire that melted the spout....and that it was stoked to burn incriminating evidence, one should wonder why partially burning clothing that did not belong to Mary Jane, and did not add any appreciable light to the environment, would be an objective of Jack the Ripper.

My best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

They probably werent used to increase the available light in the room.

I can't see why that shouldn't have been the case, Mike. Perhaps the killer wanted a little more light by which to guide his handiwork? Evisceration of such extent and intricacy would not have been easy by candle-light alone, and practically impossible in darkness.

[perrymason]

I can't see why that shouldn't have been the case, Mike. Perhaps the killer wanted a little more light by which to guide his handiwork? Evisceration of such extent and intricacy would not have been easy by candle-light alone, and practically impossible in darkness.

Hi Gareth, nice to see you mate,

I do know that you have also voiced the opinion that the killer neednt have required much light, and that perhaps a low fire, burning dung as fuel, would have been adequate. Cant have it both ways Sam.

We know a bit of candle remained from one she purchased a few days before, and we know that a ladies hat, with rim,......(there were "bonnets", looking like abbreviated straw hats, that ladies wore that had rims), and some velvet fabric from a garment were found in the remains of the fire. We do not know however to what extent the articles may have added light,....but as I pointed out, they were only partially consumed by fire, and therefore less likely to have cast any appreciable light. They may have just smouldered to that state over the coming hours.

If the articles were not burned for light, as it seems is supported by their partial survival, then perhaps they were there to add additional heat....which by itself can ignite into flame and destroy items like paper.The ashes from the fire were re-sieved by Fred Abberline, Reid and others Saturday morning....clearly the hat rim and fabric were not all they were looking for traces of.

Cheers Sam.