How did he do it?

[Supe]

Wickerman,

Aye that. I think that those who freely talk of strangulation (which is, technically, choking unto death) do not realiue that the act can take upwards of five minutes with a healthy individual. More tenable is a theory that allows for a temporary cessation of the flow of blood to the brain by digital pressure followed almost immediately by the cut to the throat.

Don.

[Wickerman]

I subscribe to the view that manual strangulation was the cause of death

Hi Bridewell.
We do have contemporary medical opinion on 'cause of death', none ascribed CoD to strangulation.
Where stated CoD is said to be attributed to syncope, which is in effect fainting, due to blood loss, which in turn was due to the cut throat.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

How Did He Do It?

Good Evening Everyone,

I'm slightly bemused that a thread entitled, "How Did He Do It?" (murder his victims) now includes pictures of Victorian fireplaces and theories about the damage to Mary Kelly's kettle - interesting topic though that is.

I subscribe to the view that manual strangulation was the cause of death and that the bodies were mutilated, from the right side, once they had sunk to the floor. I think that's consistent with the evidence, set out in earlier posts. It also lends credence to the belief that the killer would have had little or no blood-staining, because the heart would have stopped beating, before the throat was cut.

[Wickerman]

There's no way any copper or aluminium melted on that fire

It was the solder that melted

Supe is correct in that the water acts as a heat sink

If you make a paper cup and fill it with water and put it over a candle, the water will boil before the paper burns (bit of a magic trick that one..)

Nemo, I know what Supe suggested is correct, I am not disagreeing with the fact that water acts as a heat sink.
What I am saying is that from the press reports we have no way of knowing whether Supe's interpretation as to the type of assembly is correct, or as an alternate, the spout melted away completely due to the spout being made from cast aluminum and riveted on, with copper rivets.

What is more important is where was this kettle when found, because if it was in-situ on the fireplace then the burned clothes & bonnet must have been placed under the kettle. Odd, to say the least.
Alternately, if the kettle was only sitting by the fire on a hearth, or the floor, then there is no firm connection to this 'last' fire event. In other words it may have lost it's spout long ago.

Regards, Jon S.

[Nemo]

There's no way any copper or aluminium melted on that fire

It was the solder that melted

Supe is correct in that the water acts as a heat sink

If you make a paper cup and fill it with water and put it over a candle, the water will boil before the paper burns (bit of a magic trick that one..)

[Errata]

How you might stand a kettle on a fire box not intended for utilities like pans & kettles is hard to imagine.
Perhaps the kettle was just sat on top of the coals.
If that was the case then how could anyone have burned clothes on the fire with the kettle sitting there?
Was the kettle actually on the fire when the police entered the room, or have we just assumed it was?
In other words, possibly, there is no direct connection between the melted spout and the 'last' fire in her fireplace?

Regards, Jon S.

I always assumed it was a plain fireplace with those horizontal hooks in the side that swing in and out for kettles and pots and stuff.

A spout of a kettle is made with much thinner material that than the body. So a kettle made of one of the more conductive metals like copper could easily melt the spout long before the tank. Or if the solder melted and it fell off intact, once in contact with the fire it would have melted quickly, which could lead to the assumption that it melted while still on the kettle.

[Wickerman]

The kettle could have been used for a brew-up the night before, still left hanging but empty over the fireplace.
Just from the phrases used in press reports I can't see that we can easily distinguish whether the spout was detached in one piece, as would be the case if the solder had melted. Or, if the spout was cast of aluminum and had melted away to nothing.

We can't say what style of fireplace it was, or even if it was a range. As the room was only a partitioned off it is unlikely it was a full kitchen range, like below:



Or like so:



Most likely her fireplace was only a typical backroom fireplace consisting of a Iron Firebasket set into the wall:



How you might stand a kettle on a fire box not intended for utilities like pans & kettles is hard to imagine.
Perhaps the kettle was just sat on top of the coals.
If that was the case then how could anyone have burned clothes on the fire with the kettle sitting there?
Was the kettle actually on the fire when the police entered the room, or have we just assumed it was?
In other words, possibly, there is no direct connection between the melted spout and the 'last' fire in her fireplace?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ausgirl]

Sorry for going over old ground, Don, and thanks for the information.

If the solder melted simply as the kettle was left to boil dry, it stands to reason she had the kettle on right before the attack, which sort of implies she was settled in. I have trouble seeing her taking the time to make a nice cup of tea for anyone but a friend or a regular john, if somebody did indeed accompany her home.

And if the kettle did boil dry and there'd been a body part in it, wouldn't there have been a fair amount of residue in it?

[Supe]

Sally et al.,

The fire was hot enough to melt the kettle -

We do seem to go through this every few months, however:
a) As pointed out by others, the kettle did not melt, only the solder that held spout to kettle body;
b) There are many different solders, each with a different melting point. Some have a quite low melting point and would be used for cheap products, like the kettle one might imagine Mary and Joe owning.
c) This is because kettles are used to boil water and so long as there is water in the kettle that acts as a heat sink and keeps the heat under control. Only when the water has boiled away does the kettle get really hot--hot enough to melt some solders. Nor does it take a roaring fire, just steady heat (as with a barbeque).

Don.

[Ausgirl]

It might be of use to ascertain what the jacket and bonnet were made of - wasn't the bonnet crepe? Some materials burn faster and hotter than others - wool smolders forever, cotton burns relatively well, silk may tend to burn rather quickly. I doubt any fabric would cause heat enough to melt solder off a kettle. That says to me it was rather a continuously fed, red-hot fire. When a fire is burned down to being really hot coals, it doesn't smoke so much. A very hot coal fire could possibly consume a jacket that was not a heavy material like wool or double velvet quite quickly.

What sort of stove was it? A pot belly stove with a door could generate that heat, and the flue would have been hotter and taken care of the smoke more efficiently than open fire - on a cold night in London, who'd notice an extra bit of smoke from a chimney?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
According to Mrs Prater, Kelly went out on Thursday night at 9pm, wearing a jacket and bonnet, both these articles were burnt in the fire.
The jacket which was of black velvet, was owned by Kelly, and its a good bet that the bonnet was the one that Mrs Harvey left on thursday.
Its intresting that Mary Kelly wore that bonnet and jacket out initially, on the eve of the 8th, but at midnight according to Cox, was in different clothing.
It is also worth noting that the jacket was burnt according to the police, because of it being bloodstained.
Question . What made the police believe that?, why would the killer be concerned to conceal that fact?
Would the jacket and bonnet, be a clue to the police if they had not have been burnt?
Mysteries folks.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

The killer started a fire after he killed her (around 4:00 am)for light, mutilated her, took her heart out and cooked it in the kettle and probably then ate it (why cook a heart).

Would clothes have burned fiercely enough to cook a heart and make it capable of being eaten? What did he use for kindling?

Did he remove the remains and any juices from the kettle and take them away - we know Abberline examined the kettle?

Finally, wasn't this subject - cooking and eateing the heart discussed recently on Casebook? I seem to recall a conclusion that it was impractical - but maybe I missed something.

Phil

Hi Phil

It seems like there was a good amount of clothes left by maria and if they were dry and made of cotton and wool then yes. I know that cotton at least burns very hot and does not need kindling.

If the fire was hot enough to melt the pot then it propably was hot enough to cook a heart and boil awy any remaining juice.

Serial killers do many impractical things and if cannibalism is involved I don't think they are picky about it.

[Sally]

Fire

The fire was hot enough to melt the kettle - whatever the kettle was made from, it would have obviously been heat-proof to some extent; since it would have been heated on the fire regularly.

So the fire could have been quite hot - I suppose that would have been hot enough to burn clothes.

[Phil H]

The killer started a fire after he killed her (around 4:00 am)for light, mutilated her, took her heart out and cooked it in the kettle and probably then ate it (why cook a heart).

Would clothes have burned fiercely enough to cook a heart and make it capable of being eaten? What did he use for kindling?

Did he remove the remains and any juices from the kettle and take them away - we know Abberline examined the kettle?

Finally, wasn't this subject - cooking and eateing the heart discussed recently on Casebook? I seem to recall a conclusion that it was impractical - but maybe I missed something.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely fascinating , Sally -

Mary's clothes were probably damp and Maria's dry.

Yup-thats probably it then.

It would seem that MK probably removed her own clothes then passed out once Blotchy left. Her killer came to her room-he knew her and snuck in when she was sleeping.
The killer started a fire after he killed her (around 4:00 am)for light, mutilated her, took her heart out and cooked it in the kettle and probably then ate it (why cook a heart).

I am starting to wonder if cannibalism emerged as part of his MO as the series progressed, along with facial mutilation.