the key

[Wickerman]

You can "guess" whatever you like, mate, but there was certainly no lamp "hanging outside Kelly's door", ....

There is an unwritten expectation that when members make asserted claims that they at least are up to par with the case evidence. This is the second time in two days...

Quote:
"What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.
Long or short hair ? - I did not notice. He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.
The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A lamp faced the door.
Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door."
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov. 1888.

What filthy nonsense is this, Jon? On what grounds do you assert that "the idea of an intruder" is a "modern invention"?

Simply that the police made no consideration along the lines of looking for a burglar or even offering evidence at the inquest consistent with there being a break-in at #13 that night.
This is really very simple when you study up on the case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

And how could it be unrealistic to suggest that a fire that may or may not have been lit 11.45, would have been out and gone at around four hours later?

Because it is not consistent with the crime scene evidence, Fisherman, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Clothing burns very slowly, and I have always regarded it as somewhat unlikely that the killer himself was responsible for the fueling of the fire with clothing. Surely, if that were the case, he would have added Kelly's own clothes to the mix. The fact that Kelly would not have been in possession of a great deal of "normal" fuel strengthens the suggestion that she obtained it by other means, i.e. in the form of rags or unwanted clothing donated to her by laundress friends.

This was the "free fuel", and it undoubtedly smoldered throughout the night. While the resulting light would not have been great, it would certainly have been sufficient to enable an intruder to make out Kelly's location in the room and the positioning of the furniture. To an outsider's view, such as Cox's, the room would have conveyed a lights-out impression whereas in reality the candle had been blown out and the fire had died down. In addition, and despite my belief in the "intruder" scenario, I think we're both in agreement that the killer may have been familiar with the layout of the dwelling already, which would have aided movement.

"but I am equally sure that the light MAY have come from the candle only. The possibility is there, and no matter how much and what we THINK, that possibility wonīt go away."

Possible, but very unlikely, in my opinion.

It is also why I think that the killer, after having cut Kellyīs neck, got out of the bed and fuelled the fire with what he could find, clothes being among it, to enable him to see better what he did

It wouldn't have worked, Fish. Clothing doesn't give off any appreciable light when in burns, as discussed on other threads. In addition, the killer had already demonstrated that he required little light with which to work by.

Apology accepted, incidentally. I still maintain that I'm not exaggerating the extent of darkness in Mitre Square, though. As Philip Sugden points out:

"The lamp-post was sixty-five feet away. And, since the corner of Mr. Taylor's shop interposed between the murder site and a "lantern lamp" on the corner of the Walter Williams & Co. warehouse in Mitre Street, the spot was plunged into shadow after lighting up time."

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Please, Fisherman, if you want to be treated with civility and avoid one of those stoppy melt-downs of mine, don't tell me what I've been "taught". The corner of Mitre Square was very dark, and I'm well aware of Sequeira's comments that it was sufficient for the killer to have performed the mutilations, something I have never disputed. The central bullet point remains that darkness was obviously a non-issue for the ripper. "

My turn to apologize - your seeing red apparently produced my sarcastic side.
But I will steadfastly point out that, just like you say, that the darkness was a non-issue for the Ripper, and combined with Sequieras words, I think we can conclude that this speaks not of any total lack of light. Weīve both been to the square, we both know how small it is, and I think we both realize that the gas lamp in the square would have given some light, as would arguably also other ambient lightsources. I have always felt that the darkness of Mitre Square has been exaggerated, which is why I try to make a point of this. I could have made it nicer, though. Sorry.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I admittedly saw red last night, Fisherman.
My apologies for that."

Deal.

"As for the fire, it does become tiresome to have to repeat myself over and over, but please see my opening paragraph to Lechmere."

Alright - here it is:

"Of course we don't "know", but that doesn't mean we can't assess the evidence and come to realistic conclusions accordingly. The fire was obviously alight at 1.00am, as Cox observed that there was a light in the room. It is unlikely that this would have been provided by a candle alone, and it's deeply unlikely that she would not have lit the fire herself on such a cold night."

I agree that we can assess and come to conclusions. But I think we must respect all conclusions that are realistic. And how could it be unrealistic to suggest that a fire that may or may not have been lit 11.45, would have been out and gone at around four hours later? I find nothing at all unrealistic about that, least of all since I work from the assumption that Kelly was not a woman that enjoyed free fuel. She was hard pressed for money, fuel normally costs money and she would reasonably have been economic with what little she had.

"The fire was obviously alight at 1.00am, as Cox observed that there was a light in the room."

I also THINK it was alight, Ben, and I also THINK it was originally lit to warm Kelly and Blotchy - but I am equally sure that the light MAY have come from the candle only. The possibility is there, and no matter how much and what we THINK, that possibility wonīt go away.

"It is unlikely that this would have been provided by a candle alone, and it's deeply unlikely that she would not have lit the fire herself on such a cold night."

I agree to some extent, of course - but how "likely" is it that a man would cut her to pieces, eviscerate her and walk away with her heart?

The fire and the light must remain an unsolved riddle, Ben. And when I sum up what I "think", without letting things like a discerning attitude get in my way, I actually think that if there had been an obvious fire- or glowrelated light seeping out through Kellyīs window as Cox passed by at 3 AM, then she would have told the coroner this. She did not, however, and that leads me to believe that the fire was lit by Kelly as Blotchy visited, but was a meagre fire, quickly burning down and seizing to emmitt light rather soon. Soon enough for it not to be discernable for Coz, and absolutely soon enough for it to have been put out totally at around 4 AM - when the murder was committed, I believe.

This is why I think that an intruder would have been faced with the darkest venue in the Ripper series in Millerīs court as he entered. It is also why I think that the intruder scenario is not as viable as scenarios where the killer was in the room with Kelly from the outset. It is also why I think that the killer, after having cut Kellyīs neck, got out of the bed and fuelled the fire with what he could find, clothes being among it, to enable him to see better what he did.

And much as you are entitled to your opinion, I really fail to see why this suggestion would be in any way a bad one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I admittedly saw red last night, Fisherman.

My apologies for that.

As for the fire, it does become tiresome to have to repeat myself over and over, but please see my opening paragraph to Lechmere. Clearly the fire had been lit that night, and clearly it was not have been wholly extinguished by 3.00am. That is very obvious.

As Jon has now taught you, Sequiera assured the inquest that there was sufficient light in the corner for an eviscerator to work by. "Extreme" darkness would not have provided that.

Please, Fisherman, if you want to be treated with civility and avoid one of those stoppy melt-downs of mine, don't tell me what I've been "taught". The corner of Mitre Square was very dark, and I'm well aware of Sequeira's comments that it was sufficient for the killer to have performed the mutilations, something I have never disputed. The central bullet point remains that darkness was obviously a non-issue for the ripper. In fact, if you're really interested in the avoidance of "bad blood", my suggestion again would be to avoid the annoying semantics and draw a discreet veil over that particular topic.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Fetchbeer,

"We don’t know that the fire was smouldering – we don’t who lit it or when it was lit."

We can stick our heads in the sand like silly ostriches and yell "we don't know" for eternity, but it hardly advances our collective understanding. Of course we don't "know", but that doesn't mean we can't assess the evidence and come to realistic conclusions accordingly. The fire was obviously alight at 1.00am, as Cox observed that there was a light in the room. It is unlikely that this would have been provided by a candle alone, and it's deeply unlikely that she would not have lit the fire herself on such a cold night.

The clear assumption was that someone went back with her and did it.

It's not clear at all. There may have been a suspicion amongst the police that the Blotchy man may have been the killer, which would mean that he was taken home, but they certainly weren't employing your "logic", which asserts that all victims escorted to their killer to the spot where they were murdered, which is only speculation. Even it were true in the cases of the earlier victims, it is only reasonable to acknowledge that different crime scenes call for different approaches. Bundy targeted his "outdoor" victims under a false guise, but when it came to the Tallahasssee murders, he simply "broke in".

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

I notice you are at it again, loosing your temper and resorting to calling people things and such.

"It must have emitted some light, unless we're prepared to accept that Kelly failed to light her fire or extinguished it completely before going to bed. It should be regarded as obvious amongst the sane and honest that the fire was at least alight, albeit possible smoldering and dying down, as the killer commenced his attack. "

The sane and the honest, Ben? And what would that make me, not agreeing with you?
And why would I agree - everybody knows that we do not have any starting point recorded for that fire, just as we donīt know who started it. Moreover, we canīt tell how much fuel was piled on, or what the fuel was, so we canīt tell how fast it would burn down.

I notice that you call Jonīs contribution "filthy nonsense", so it would seem I am not the sole target for your eloquence! But must you sound like Bagdad Bob when you do it?

"A fire that had almost certainly been set alight at 11:45 at the very earliest - and remained alight after 1.00am - would almost certainly remain alight two hours later, as Abby Normal sensibly pointed out. It would create light a few hours later, irrefutably so."

Psssh - the "irrefutablies" again. Well, Ben, I refute, and so does anybody who realizes that unknown factors are unknown factors.
Please note that you yourself wrote "almost" certainly, Ben. Thatīs a good starting point for delving into the matter in a more sensible fashion.

"It would not have been a "pitch-dark room", as you'd realise if you used your brain."

Can you please keep it a bit more civil? Please?

"It would have been illuminated - to a greater or lesser degree - by the firelight, and possibly illuminated further by the gas lamp that faced the murder room."

The firelight that may or may not have been there, you mean? And the gas lamp that may or may not have been what made Cox tell the inquest that "the light was out"?

"Very" versus "extremely" - wow, what a difference."

Yes, Ben. The difference is an important one. As Jon has now taught you, Sequiera assured the inquest that there was sufficient light in the corner for an eviscerator to work by. "Extreme" darkness would not have provided that.

I can understand if you feel a bit uneasy for having gotten this wrong, and for having described a murder venue in an unfitting way. But the better way to mend such things is not to try and be sarcastic towards people who got it right - you just admit your mistake and your bad choice of wording, and get on with things. Anything else will only evoke bad blood, and there is enough of that around without others adding to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben
We don’t know that the fire was smouldering – we don’t who lit it or when it was lit.
We don’t know that the light that previously emitted from her room came from the fire – it could have come from a candle.
The ‘intruder’ idea is I would suggest at the very least not contemporary. Then the clear assumption was that someone went back with her and did it. Which is of course the most likely scenario as it is what seems to have happened to all the rest – they were accompanied to the place of their murder by the murderer.
And the Fleming issue has never been properly resolved.

I hope you aren’t called for jury service – so many certainties that are not backed up by real evidence – that would be real filthy.

And back to the key – or at least the means of gaining entry for the ‘intruder’.
If it was so straight forward then I will come back to the thorny question of why it wasn’t so easy for the police, the landlord, his wife and her agent didn’t slip the simple and easy bolt.

[harry]

'Intruders' inserting themselves into victims premises are legion.'Intruders' entering premises to commit crime are legion.It's by no means a modern invention.The door to Kelly's room was accessible by reaching through a broken window and releasing a bolt.A simple and easy procedure.Not the only way of gaining entry it is true,but in the absence of evidence that any other method was used,equally as opportunist.

[Ben]

We only know that her room did not emmitt any light at 3 AM

No we don't, Fisherman.

It must have emitted some light, unless we're prepared to accept that Kelly failed to light her fire or extinguished it completely before going to bed. It should be regarded as obvious amongst the sane and honest that the fire was at least alight, albeit possible smoldering and dying down, as the killer commenced his attack.

It would, so to speak, go from emitting no light to emitting even less light.

Nonsense, Fishypoo!

A fire that had almost certainly been set alight at 11:45 at the very earliest - and remained alight after 1.00am - would almost certainly remain alight two hours later, as Abby Normal sensibly pointed out. It would create light a few hours later, irrefutably so.

And if he did not do exactly that, we are STILL faced with a scenario where he may have had to negotiate a pitch-dark room from the outset, looking for the fireplace - to begin with.

Forget it.

Seriously.

It would not have been a "pitch-dark room", as you'd realise if you used your brain.

It would have been illuminated - to a greater or lesser degree - by the firelight, and possibly illuminated further by the gas lamp that faced the murder room.

As for vocabulary, it really is no surprising that I'm up against the same oh-so-formidable nuisances who claimed unconvincingly to have a problem with it last time the topic was dredged up. "Very" versus "extremely" - wow, what a difference. Please kill me humanely if I'm still fussing over such semantic distinctions when I reach middle age.

Lechmere,

The son of Henrietta and Richard Fleming was the man who knew Kelly.

This is a resolved issue.

[Ben]

What a shower...

Yes, "Jon S", aka "Wickerman".

Have a medal for your deductive indefatigability. It was a very dark corner of Mitre Square where Catherine Eddowes was mutilated, and almost certainly darker than room #13 Miller's Court when the killer accessed it. "Sufficient light" there may have been with which to perform the mutilations, but then this was even more true of the Miller's Court scene.

You can guess that the above was what she meant, however, the only light she had previously made reference to was the lamp hanging outside Kelly's door.

You can "guess" whatever you like, mate, but there was certainly no lamp "hanging outside Kelly's door", so if you're suggesting that Cox was referring to any light other than the one that which was visible inside Kelly's room (and probably creating by the light of the fire), you're onto a losing wicket.

The idea of an intruder ranks along with other modern inventions, no evidence, no basis, no point.

What filthy nonsense is this, Jon? On what grounds do you assert that "the idea of an intruder" is a "modern invention"? Can you provide any popularly-espoused contemporary evidence that Kelly was not considered to have been an "intruder" at the time? Can you provide any evidence for this allegedly popular NON-modern perception of Kelly's killer as a client. Because if you can't, you should hush your noise, and cease your futile and embarrassing pretense that your voice represents any sort of rank and file thinking on the subject, which it most assuredly does not.

[Lechmere]

To make Joseph Fleming born in Bethnal Green in 1859, the son of Richard and Henrietta (nee Masom) Fleming, the Fleming who went out with Kelly (if she ever went out with someone called Joe Fleming at all) means bashing quite a few edges off to make it a round peg to fit in the round hole.

[Wickerman]

It was a very dark corner of Mitre Square, Fisherman.

I'd be truly amazed if anyone really wanted to waste time refuting that obvious reality.

Perhaps in 'our' eagerness to prove an argument 'we' have overlooked what Dr. Sequeira said about the darkest corner...
"was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed."

Sufficient light, enough said.

... When Mary Cox observed that there was no light in the room at 3.00am, she probably meant that the candle and/or fire had been extinguished from earlier, i.e. 1.00am.

You can guess that the above was what she meant, however, the only light she had previously made reference to was the lamp hanging outside Kelly's door.
Later in her testimony Cox says she had seen a light "in the window" while she was referring to Blotchy (in the Telegraph), or while she heard Kelly singing (in the Times).
So, at 3:00am when Cox returned, she tells us the "light was out" without saying which light she was talking about.
On the one hand we learn that McCarthy closed his shop at the latest by 3:00am, we might reasonably assume his charity would not extend to burning gas over night after his shop is closed.
I suspect Cox, at 3:00am, was referring to the outside lamp.

The idea of an intruder ranks along with other modern inventions, no evidence, no basis, no point. Well, yes the point extends to the fact it is promoted in order to distract away from anything said by Hutchinson. Because if Astrachan is lamely dismissed, and Blotchy is rightly too early, then WE need this hypothetical "intruder"....thats the point, the whole point!

As if we don't have enough to debate without inventing fictitious intruders.

So where are we, we create intruders that don't exist, we ignore witnesses that do exist, and we have the keystone cops running around in circles...

What a shower...

Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Please don’t whinge at me, Fisherman. It’s most irritating. You are the one exaggerating the extent of darkness in Kelly’s room in an unsuccessful attempt to make the “intruder” premise appear less plausible."

I would have thought that such a thing would take some proving, Ben. For all I know, we do not have any recordings about when the fire was lit or not. We only know that her room did not emmitt any light at 3 AM, and I think that calling it a certain thing that it would have been burning as the killer leaped into action (and we donīt know this time either) would be rather a hazarduous thing to do. But you seem to have magical access to much more information than the rest of us, so what do I know?

"In order for the room to have been in near-total darkness, the fire would need have been wholly extinguished or not even lit, and the chances of this being the case are wildly remote."

Maiking a long answer short: no.

"It was a very cold night in a small room – Kelly obviously lit the fire, and equally obviously, it contributed to the “light” referred to by Mary Cox as having been present at 1.00am."

Did you not just tell me that Cox was referring to the candle only?

"This had obviously died down considerably by 3.00am, and may have been “refuelled” by the killer."

It had in fact died down to the point of emitting no light through the windows as Cox checked for it. That is not exactly a roaring fire we seem to be speaking of, is it? And if the killing came about around 45 minutes later or so - which a good deal speaks for - then it would have emmitted even less light at that stage. It would, so to speak, go from emitting no light to emitting even less light. "Wildly remote" though it may sound, that is what happens to fires dying down - they emitt lesser and lesser light throughout the process.

Of course, just like you say, the killer may have refuelled the fire. But if he was an intruder, I find the suggestion that he started out his raid by adding sticks and clothing to the fire, blowing upon it to make it catch on, before he started searcing for Kelly, rather an odd thing.
And if he did not do exactly that, we are STILL faced with a scenario where he may have had to negotiate a pitch-dark room from the outset, looking for the fireplace - to begin with.

"If all you can do in response make a semantic fuss over the distinction between “very” and “extremely”, you’re wasting your own time."

Maybe I am - but I was rather hoping I did not. I was somehow hoping that you would realize that "extremely dark" means that we are talking about the furthermost value of darkness - the absense of any light, as it were - whereas "very dark" includes at least some sort of visibility. In the Mitre Square case, I believe that the visibility was not all that low. The killer would not have needed a blind manīs cane to prod around. So it was not extremely dark at all.

If we stick with a sensible vocabulary, avoiding the unneccesary "extremelies" and "wildly remotes" we will gain a better understanding. How interesting such an offer is to you, is however not for me to answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Absolutely, Abby.

I also wonder if the light outside room #1 (occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room) might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc.

All the best,
Ben