Why didn't anyone notice the bright light of the fire in Mary's room?

[Ben]

Hi all,

I'm afraid I don't agree that there was no fire until after 3.00am. It was observed that there was a light in her room at least two hours before that, and unless this referred to a solitary candle flame, it could only have been generated by firelight. Presumably, it had died down by 3.00, thus accounting for Mary Cox's observation that there was no light in her room at that time. It may well have been re-stoked by the killer afterwards, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[Livia]

Hi Bridewell,
I am in full agreement with your take on Rigor Mortis.I would suggest that it would have been impossible to pinpoint T.O.D via body examination[ what was left], and much of the opinion was based on witness reports especially the cry.
The point has always been, a sworn account by a respectable woman[ Maxwell] having seen the victim alive around 830am, and I feel rather then except a dodgy verdict by a nineteenth century doctor/doctors, we should have more faith in a very detailed account, not to mention clothing description, taken in the form of a statement, on the day of the event, and sworn under oath at the inquest, which was taken after a weekend , which was ample time to realise a mistake.
The police believed the murder was committed during daylight, which was in contrast to there own police doctors, and they believed Caroline Maxwell to such an extent, they placed her under oath at the inquest, and never considered her a time waster.
Look at the bedding, the placing of her boots, the police opinion that both Kelly's Velvet jacket, and Harvey's bonnet , were burnt because of bloodstains, and its not hard to come, to my long held opinion, that MJK was killed much later then modern day reckoning suggests.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I agree. Of all the Kelly witnesses, Maxwell seems
the most reliable.

I don't recall where I read it, but didn't the young
PC Walter Dew say that upon walking into Kelly's
room, he slipped and fell in blood that was on the floor?
Blood spilled on a solid surface tends to dry/clot
pretty quickly, so if the blood had been on the floor
since the early hours of the 9th, how was that possible?

Liv

[Abby Normal]

Hi Bridewell,
I am in full agreement with your take on Rigor Mortis.I would suggest that it would have been impossible to pinpoint T.O.D via body examination[ what was left], and much of the opinion was based on witness reports especially the cry.
The point has always been, a sworn account by a respectable woman[ Maxwell] having seen the victim alive around 830am, and I feel rather then except a dodgy verdict by a nineteenth century doctor/doctors, we should have more faith in a very detailed account, not to mention clothing description, taken in the form of a statement, on the day of the event, and sworn under oath at the inquest, which was taken after a weekend , which was ample time to realise a mistake.
The police believed the murder was committed during daylight, which was in contrast to there own police doctors, and they believed Caroline Maxwell to such an extent, they placed her under oath at the inquest, and never considered her a time waster.
Look at the bedding, the placing of her boots, the police opinion that both Kelly's Velvet jacket, and Harvey's bonnet , were burnt because of bloodstains, and its not hard to come, to my long held opinion, that MJK was killed much later then modern day reckoning suggests.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
Do we really beleive someone who "has the horrors of drink on them" and is so hung over that they are vomiting in the streets is going to be solicitating for sex? doubt it.

Also, the burnt clothes/strong fire indicate a night time murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

I'm afraid I don't agree that there was no fire until after 3.00am. It was observed that there was a light in her room at least two hours before that, and unless this referred to a solitary candle flame, it could only have been generated by firelight. Presumably, it had died down by 3.00, thus accounting for Mary Cox's observation that there was no light in her room at that time. It may well have been re-stoked by the killer afterwards, of course.

All the best,
Ben

I agree. This is the most likely and reasonable scenario.

[Bridewell]

Yes

Hi Richard
Do we really beleive someone who "has the horrors of drink on them" and is so hung over that they are vomiting in the streets is going to be soliciting for sex? doubt it.

I can't speak for Richard, but that's exactly what I believe, yes. It is very likely that MJK was not just a drinker but, despite her relative youth, an alcoholic. If so, she will have had a genuine physical need for alcohol to get rid of the "horrors of drink", which would eventually lead to full-blown delirium tremens without it. I think she was indeed soliciting for sex.

Also, the burnt clothes/strong fire indicate a night time murder.

It was November. Why does it not just indicate a need for heat? I can't read anything time specific into a fire in a grate during November.

Regards, Bridewell.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
We do not know that Kelly was soliciting for sex, she might simply have been picked up, there is a difference.
I feel one major clue lies with her velvet jacket, and what appears to have been Mrs Harvey's bonnet.
We have reports that Mary never wore a hat, yet on the eve of her death Mrs Harvey[ before leaving] used the words''I shall leave my bonnet then''.
It would appear using Mrs Praters statement, that she saw Mary wearing her jacket, and a bonnet at 9pm [8th] the words she used in describing that meeting have a ring of truth about them.
But how do we explain Mrs Cox's sighting of Mary and Blotchy around midnight, when Kelly was wearing different clothing.?
Two explanations.
1] Cox was mistaken/lying
2] Mary had [ because of the rain] returned back to her room to swap clothing, rather then ruin both of those items, saving them for her proposed trip to the Lord mayors show , which is why Harvey left her bonnet.ether that or for a pre planned date which failed to materialize .
The police [ Times Nov12] indicated that they believed the murder was in daylight, and the velvet jacket and bonnet were put on the fire because they were bloodstained.
What a strange conclusion...in order for that to have happened, it would suggest, that the victim was wearing them when attacked, which would not concur with Cox's version, we cannot say what clothing was wearing when Hutchinson allegedly saw Kelly as it has never been stated.
Or those two items were on the bed when she was attacked, which would not indicate T.O.D during the earlier hours, she would hardly retire with her jacket and bonnet still on the bed., but what if she was attacked around 9am, and she had laid out these items on her bed to wear , and was attacked before she dressed?
So where these items disposed of via the fire, as they might have provided the police with a different T.O.D then the rest of the scene, which appears like a night incident.
Or maybe the killer have been worried that these items may have linked him with the victim from the previous night , ie someone had seen a couple with the woman wearing them.
More talking points .
Regards Richard.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Richard

"We do not know that Kelly was soliciting for sex"
This depends on what, if any, of the Hutchinson account you believe. If you believe the bare fact that the meeting did take place between Hutchinson and Kelly at the place and time he stated then one has to ask what Kelly was doing walking the streets of Spitalfields at 2 a.m. on a November morning.
We must remember that in the absence of Barnett from Millers Court (and the fact that he was not earning anyway) it would seem that soliciting was sadly Kelly's only feasible source of immediate income.
Kelly must have known
a) The level of debt she had with McCarthy and
b) the fact that Bowyer or McCarthy himself would be round the next day looking for payment
I would suggest that IF the time and place of the meeting with Hutchinson is true (irrespective of how much of the rest of Hutch's tale bears scrutiny) it is difficult to say what would be Kelly's motive for being out and about at 2 a.m. if not soliciting.
We know both from other residents of Millers Court who were almost certainly "unfortunates" and also from accounts of the movements of some of the other victims, that it was not at all unusual for women to be seeking clients well into the early hours of the morning.

[Wyatt Earp]

William Bury did the same thing after he murdered his wife Ellen -- he threw her clothes in the fireplace and burned them. If the Kelly fire was not needed for light, which Maxwell's sighting of Mary, a woman she recognized and whose clothes she accurately described, suggests, then I'm wondering if the burning of the clothes might not simply have been another act of aggression toward the victim, perhaps the killer's final act before leaving the scene.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Chris,
I was not implying that Kelly was not soliciting for sex, just that she may have been picked up, rather as a reference to Hutchinson's account ''he put out his arm as to detain her''.
As for the implication of sex, if one takes the word of Bond etc, no sexual connection apparently took place[ a positive remark considering the mutilation], so apparently neither Blotchy, or Mr A, received intimacy.
As for the amount owed to McCarthy, which was a sizeable sum, it would appear that the landlord was being compassionate[possible twofold]
a] He held Barnett responsible for the rent arrears, being the only breadwinner, and was given Mary every chance to find another wage earner.
b] He was being compassionate, aware fully of the danger in the streets, and was not going to turn her out , at least until the Ripper was caught, one imagines Mrs McCarthy who spoke of the danger to Kelly the previous day, receiving the reply''He is a concern isn't he'', would have urged her husband to show pity.
Apparently on the Friday morning, Mrs McCarthy and McCarthy junior , were collecting rents from other residents in the court, but Bowyer was sent directly to room 13, which does seem rather odd, however it was reported that several residents had informed the landlord that Kelly was not responding to a knock , and all being quiet , asked him to check on her.. hence the visit from Bowyer.
As for other residents of the court, not all were unfortunates , the majority had partners.
Regards Richard.
As for Kelly's alleged meeting with Hutchinson[ which I believe took place] being out on the streets at 2am, does not fully imply that she was soliciting, many people go out for a walk , when they cant sleep, or are scared of their surroundings, as Kelly may have been [ note the sleepovers] and the alleged nightmare she informed Lottie of [ reported in 1891].

[Abby Normal]

I can't speak for Richard, but that's exactly what I believe, yes. It is very likely that MJK was not just a drinker but, despite her relative youth, an alcoholic. If so, she will have had a genuine physical need for alcohol to get rid of the "horrors of drink", which would eventually lead to full-blown delirium tremens without it. I think she was indeed soliciting for sex.



It was November. Why does it not just indicate a need for heat? I can't read anything time specific into a fire in a grate during November.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell
If so, she will have had a genuine physical need for alcohol to get rid of the "horrors of drink", which would eventually lead to full-blown delirium tremens without it.

It was November. Why does it not just indicate a need for heat? I can't read anything time specific into a fire in a grate during November.

But according to maxwell she already tried to have drink-didn't work. Also, maxwell said she saw mary again outside the bar at 9:00. Bowyer discovered her body at 10:45. So mary would have to have brought back her client, sick as she was, been murdered and mutilated, the fire to have been started clothes burnt and the fire to then die down, her killer to get cleaned up and then get out of there (without having been seen) all in the span of an hour and a half? Thats a bit tight dont you think?

Anyway, as adament and "respectable" that Maxwell was it seems that the police and most experts had/have come to the conclusion that she was off on the day, had the wrong Mary or was lying. I agree.

[Abby Normal]

William Bury did the same thing after he murdered his wife Ellen -- he threw her clothes in the fireplace and burned them. If the Kelly fire was not needed for light, which Maxwell's sighting of Mary, a woman she recognized and whose clothes she accurately described, suggests, then I'm wondering if the burning of the clothes might not simply have been another act of aggression toward the victim, perhaps the killer's final act before leaving the scene.

Very interesting Wyatt
The burning of clothes a possible link between mary and bury's wife?

[Cogidubnus]

We do not know that Kelly was soliciting for sex, she might simply have been picked up, there is a difference.

What an interesting thought...now taken with a certain red flower in another case there's food for thought...has Jack started dating them?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

I'm inclined to go along with Ben that the fire was earlier and subsequently stoked up by the killer ... if it's a hob grate or open range, fuelled with cheap coke, the heat stays in quite well, and the fire basket is raised. providing better draughting - therefore, the burning of clothing wouldn't be so apt to smother a recovering blaze...

Why would Mary herself burn clothing? She wouldn't because (a) Some of it's been left by her friend and isn't hers (b) It's all got a value if hocked...If you owe six weeks rent you DON'T burn a source of money...

I concur with Paul Begg (in "The Facts") to the effect that most likely Caroline Maxwell had, at some point, had a particular woman pointed out to her as Mary Kelly, had spoken to her a few times, and saw same the morning after the killings...when in fact it wasn't Mary, (and never had been), but someone else...perhaps another unfortunate...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

I don't buy the idea of Caroline Maxwell getting the wrong day. Her witness statement is dated 9th November. 'Wrong Day' would require her to be unable to tell the difference between what happened today and what happened yesterday.

Either she and Maurice Lewis (who claimed to have known MJK for 5 years) are both mistaken or both lying - or both are telling the truth. If just one person was claiming to have seen MJK that morning, the possibility of error would be significant, but two seems unlikely.

The Ripper did what he did to Eddowes (including the pick-up) in less than 5 minutes. Why is the 2 hours for MJK seen as fact? At best, it's a guess as to how long an experienced mutilator would need to complete a mutilation process - a guess by someone who's never attempted it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

spewing

Hello Colin. I think Gareth Williams provided a timeline closer to 60-90 minutes for the event.

Whilst I agree that Lewis reinforces Maxwell, I wonder whether her vomiting episode is congruent with the fish and chips found in her stomach?

Cheers.
LC