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

[Chris Scott]

From "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?"

"We now come to the much debated subject of the fire that was lit in the room at Miller's Court. At the inquest the only mention of this was by Inspector Abberline who had this to say: "There had been a large fire, so large as to melt the spout off the kettle. I have since gone through the ashes in the grate and found nothing of consequence except that articles of woman's clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room." At this moment we are only looking at the issue of clothing burned in the grate - we will look at other issues raised by the fire shortly. The press accounts which refer to the fire in the room confirm that the ashes were examined - in fact, some say they were passed through a sieve - and that nothing of importance was found. Some press accounts add the fact that part of the wire rim of a woman's bonnet was found in the ashes. The questions that arise at this point are - what clothing was burnt and why? One unanswered - and unanswerable - question is whether there was a fire already going in the grate at 13 Miller's Court when the killer, by whatever means, gained entry. It seems likely to me on two counts that this would have been the case. In view of the time of year it would not be at all unlikely that Kelly would have had a fire burning. And it seems most unlikely that the killer would pause during or after the mutilations to Kelly's body to light a fire from scratch to burn articles of clothing for whatever purpose. But of course this begs the question of who actually burned the clothing. It is usually assumed by most observers - including Abberline - that the killer himself burned the clothes. As to what clothing was burned, various exotic theories have emerged to explain this strange act. One frequently quoted is that the killer burnt part of his own clothing, which was bloodstained, to avoid venturing out into the street in such a condition. This seems to me most unlikely. Unless it was a lighter inner garment, such as a shirt, a man's outer garment, especially a winter garment, of the period would most likely have been of a fairly dense material such as tweed or serge. Such a garment, especially if blood soaked to the extent that the killer felt he had to destroy it, would simply not burn but would at most smoulder, and substantial amounts of it would surely have remained to be found by Abberline. Another theory is that the killer burnt part of Kelly's clothing. But if this were done to destroy evidence - the most conceivable motive - this is nonsensical in the light of the horrifically mutilated body left on the bed to be discovered. The most likely answer seems to be apparent - that the clothing burned in the grate at Miller's Court was the clothing left by Maria Harvey, except for the man's overcoat for the very reason mentioned above - that such a heavy, dense material would not burn but merely smoulder in a small, domestic grate. But how do we equate this with Abberline's statement that he found the remains of a woman's clothing? All the available statements, and the stated ferocity of the fire, suggest that all Abberline found were ashes, which would be impossible to identify with certainty as male or female clothing. The only item which would not burn and would be left in a recognisable form was the wire rim of the crepe bonnet left by Maria Harvey.

This brings us on to more general questions about the fire, such as the melting of the kettle and the purpose for which such a fire was lit. Abberline described it as "a large fire" - but it not clear whether he meant large as in size, with much material burned, or large as in temperature, for the main result of this largeness is the melting of the kettle. But again these assertions beg many questions. How can we be sure that all of the material that was found by Abberline was the result of a single fire burned on the night of 8th to 9th November? Is it not possible that what Abberline found was the accumulation of ashes from a few or even many days' fires? Are we to assume that Kelly was punctilious enough to clean out the grate every day and that, therefore, all the debris found on the day of the murder was the product of only one large fire instead of days of small fires? All the mysteries regarding the fire are based on the assumption that it was the killer who burned the clothing and that everything that was found in the grate that day resulted from one conflagration. We do not know what type or quantity of fuel Kelly had in her room - wood or coal - but if she took a client back to her room on the evening of the 8th and the room was dark and cold, it is not inconceivable that Kelly herself stoked up the fire with all she had to hand, the more easily burned articles left by Maria Harvey. Again we have no way of knowing for certain that the melting of the kettle actually happened on the night of the murder. If it had happened earlier it is hardly the sort of circumstance that a visitor would have commented on or even noticed - it is an event small in itself, which only became important because of its location and its assumed synchronicity with the murder. One note about the melted kettle, which all revolves around one word. Abberline did not say that the fire had melted the spout "of" the kettle - he said it had melted the spout "off" the kettle. This would only make sense in one context. The type of kettle used by someone of Kelly's means, which were limited to say the least, would in all likelihood have been a cheap tin kettle in which the spout was soldered to the body of the object. The melting point of tin is 232 degrees Celsius, 450 degrees Fahrenheit - a rather high temperature for a small domestic fire, however well stoked. However the melting point of solder, specially the type of low grade solder used in cheap tin ware, is somewhere about 118 degrees Celsius, i.e. only 18 degrees above the boiling point of water and certainly achievable in a domestic grate. What I suggest may have happened and what Abberline implied in his statement, was that the heat of the fire, either on the night of the murder or some previous occasion, weakened or even melted the solder joint on the kettle and the spout fell off."

[Chris Scott]

If the interior view of Kelly's room (including the fireplace) which was published in Reynolds Newspaper on 18 November 1888 is reasonably accurate (and I know of no good reason to think it isn't) then the central part of the fireplace - i.e. the grate itself where the fire would have sat - could well have been much smaller than one might imagine.
The house in which i was born and grew up dated from the 1890s and all of the 3 bedrooms had their own cast iron fireplace. But the grate itself was tiny as the bedrooms were small. I cannot imagine that Kelly's small room at Millers Court (only about 12 feet long) would have required a large grate so the image of a huge blazing fire might well be an exaggeration.
If you look at the Reynolds section below you will see that the central part - where the fire itself would have sat - is not that much wider than the print hanging on the wall above the fire.
Chris

PS
I will dig out the section on the Fire from "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?"
In this context it might be of interest.
CS

[Cogidubnus]

Embers can continue to smoulder and retain heat for many, many hours after a fire has been extinguished. There have been instances of dustbin fires where somebody has carelessly scraped away what they thought were extinguished ashes more than 24 hours after a fire and there's still been sufficient heat to ignite a scrap of paper in the bin. (I'll dig out the sources that I found for this later if anyone is interested)

Sound reasoning in my view Sarah...

We have live fires in our house, and I confirm that with a fire allowed to die down by midnight, the ashes are often still too hot to wrap in newspaper (for disposal) as late as 11am the following day...

But I wonder, what would hinder a really hot fire, say, a night or two before, from burning the kettle and then dying out.; the night before, however, a much more moderate fire having burned and yet having left the ashes warm?

Nothing against that Lynn...Indeed I'd guess that burning the clothing might well lead to a slower smouldering fire rather than a blazing one...If you put too much cloth or indeed paper on even a well-lit fire, it can actually smother it rather than fuel it (unless it's really well draughted)

Would not smoldering clothing give off a distinct smell? Or perhaps the burning of clothing was commonplace among these unfortunates?

Good question Greg...mind you the place probably reeked like a charnel house anyway by the time they broke in...

All the best

Dave

[GregBaron]

Smell...

Hi all,

Would not smoldering clothing give off a distinct smell? Or perhaps the burning of clothing was commonplace among these unfortunates?

Another possibility. Did the place stink so bad that no one noticed this smell?

I don't believe any witnesses mentioned anything about the smell of burnt clothing...


Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

The fire, assuming it was started that night, may just give us the key to what happened.

In the event Mary was pissed right up to the eyeballs, and on her own, then I don't see her lighting a fire to keep warm. Food and bed is usually the order of the day when under the influence. Ruling out for me Mary starting the fire to keep warm and an intruder entering further down the line.

That leaves me with two scenarios:

1) The killer killed her and then started the fire before cracking on.

2) Or, she was entertaining. She started the fire with killer in tow before said killer got to work.

I'm 80/20 in favour of 1.

Were it not for Blotchy and Mary turning up 12ish and the body being examined by the doctor 14 hours later, with rigor mortis only setting in, then I'd be 90/10 in favour of Blotchy - and the fire being lit to provide warmth for perceived entertainment.

[lynn cates]

when?

Hello Carol, Chris. Thanks.

But I wonder, what would hinder a really hot fire, say, a night or two before, from burning the kettle and then dying out.; the night before, however, a much more moderate fire having burned and yet having left the ashes warm?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

A fire fierce enough to melt the solder between a kettle and its spout had burnt in the grate, apparently fuelled with clothing. Inspector Abberline thought Kelly's clothes were burnt by the murderer to provide light, as the room was otherwise only dimly lit by a single candle.

Phillips suggested that the extensive mutilations would have taken two hours to perform, and Bond noted that rigor mortis set in as they were examining the body, indicating that death occurred between 2 and 8:00 a.m.

Writer Mark Daniel proposed that Kelly's murderer was a religious maniac, who killed Kelly as part of a ritual sacrifice, and that the fire in the grate was not to provide light but was used to make a burnt offering.

Whatever the reason for the fire, it is certain there was a fire, and it burned for a while, possible over an hour, perhaps two.

Hutchinson first came to our attention with his detailed, and according to some Ripper authors, too detailed account of a suspect seen with Mary Kelly shortly before she was murdered.


"I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern.

They both went into Dorset Street, I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her, she said, 'Alright my dear, come along, you will be comfortable'. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss, she said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief , a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together.

I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but could not . I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not, so I went away. "

Hutchinson described the man as about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with A dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and eyelashes, he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about 8 inches long and it had a strap round it, he had it tightly grasped in his left hand, it looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly."

Hutchinson noticed a lot. But he did NOT notice the window must've glowed brightly from this fire.

How could he have left out that detail? How could he be so observant but did not question this bright light from the window. He did not wonder what was going on in there that such a fire was burning? Why did he not question where she got such an amount of kindling? Why would two people having a sexual encounter be so involved in making the room so bright? Surely the fire needed tending? How did he not question the room itself may have been on fire?

I have been wondering about this for a while. I am not saying I believe Hutchinson to be a liar, but I do wonder how could someone stand outside a room with suspicion, someone who was so careful as to remember such details of clothing and NEVER question the reason for this fire? Not even mention he saw the evidence of such a fire? Something is missing here, I think.

The fact that JTR killed in a dark corner rather than under a lamp tells you he didn't need light that would attract attention.

I suppose there are degrees of fire. A blazing fire lighting up the front room is probably out of the question. But, a fire giving off enough light to enablw him to see what he was doing is in in my book. The reason being that it's not that much of a risk to have light in the room - no one is going to knock on your door simply because they see light, and I doubt Dahmer killed people in his home with the lights turned off.

Presumably, this is someone who would want to see his work?

[The Good Michael]

Thank you for the information, makes me visualize what went on here as I never have been completely able to.

You're welcome. We don't know where he stood because he may have been not so honest, but if he looked up the Court, I'd put him with his head poking into the archway that you have in the picture on the left. Not sure he would have waited there blocking the passage for 45 minutes, however.

Mike

[Beowulf]

Two things: 1, Where Hutchinson would have been standing had no view of either window which were both facing into the court towards the dust bin. Hutch says he was standing outside the court watching and would have not even seen a blazing fire had there been one in the back. From the Evening News of the 14th "He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."

2, Clothing doesn't burn brightly, it smolders more than it burns. With the dust bin area obscuring Kelly's windows pretty much and with the coat hanging in one window, I doubt the light would have been much more than what a second candle might give off.

Mike

Well, that is certainly an intelligent answer. So, this knocks off the whole question of why he didn't see the bright light. Thank you for that, it was driving me crazy.

So, then he stood out on the street where the archway entry to Miller's Court was?

I'm including pictures of that, and the inside of the court with the two windows.

Thank you for the information, makes me visualize what went on here as I never have been completely able to.

[SarahLee]

The fire and what it might / might not tell us about timings is something that I've been pondering myself the last few days.
For what it's worth, I tend to reject the notion that residual warmth and the melted spout are accurate indications of timing or of the ferocity of the fire.

1) Embers can continue to smoulder and retain heat for many, many hours after a fire has been extinguished. There have been instances of dustbin fires where somebody has carelessly scraped away what they thought were extinguished ashes more than 24 hours after a fire and there's still been sufficient heat to ignite a scrap of paper in the bin. (I'll dig out the sources that I found for this later if anyone is interested)

2) I also maintain that a low heat over a sustained time period is equally able to melt the spout off an empty kettle as a fierce heat over a shorter period. I speak from experience, having melted the handle off a modern saucepan left on a low heat to simmer which I subsequently forgot about for a few hours and allowed to boil dry

Given that Elizabeth Prater could usually see a glimmer of light (presumably candlelight) through the partition wall, I believe that she would have noticed light from a fire. Regardless of whether it was burning low or fiercely, I think that this would have been noticeably distinct from the usual candlelight to make an impression on her.

So - where does this get me?

There is no doubt that there was a fire, but I believe the fire was not alight at 1:30am on the night (early morning) in question. It was either lit and extinguished earlier or ignited at some time after 1:30am.
The residual warmth IMO does not preclude that fire having been lit earlier that evening or even a lot earlier in the day - although it certainly doesn't point away from a later fire either.

The melted spout? Well that indicates to me either a large, fiercely burning fire as seems to be the prevalent theory or a low, smouldering fire that had been going for quite a long period of time.

Apologies for the rambling thinking aloud. I'm afraid that's about as far as my thought processes have got at the moment, and it really doesn't amount to much. I'm hoping that it will give me a point of reference though for when I start to assemble some of the other pieces around it.

[Abby Normal]

A fire fierce enough to melt the solder between a kettle and its spout had burnt in the grate, apparently fuelled with clothing. Inspector Abberline thought Kelly's clothes were burnt by the murderer to provide light, as the room was otherwise only dimly lit by a single candle.

Phillips suggested that the extensive mutilations would have taken two hours to perform, and Bond noted that rigor mortis set in as they were examining the body, indicating that death occurred between 2 and 8:00 a.m.

Writer Mark Daniel proposed that Kelly's murderer was a religious maniac, who killed Kelly as part of a ritual sacrifice, and that the fire in the grate was not to provide light but was used to make a burnt offering.

Whatever the reason for the fire, it is certain there was a fire, and it burned for a while, possible over an hour, perhaps two.

Hutchinson first came to our attention with his detailed, and according to some Ripper authors, too detailed account of a suspect seen with Mary Kelly shortly before she was murdered.


"I stood against the lamp of the Queens Head public house and watched him. They both came past me, and the man hung down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face, he looked at me stern.

They both went into Dorset Street, I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her, she said, 'Alright my dear, come along, you will be comfortable'. He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss, she said she had lost her handkerchief. He then pulled his handkerchief , a red one, out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together.

I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but could not . I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not, so I went away. "

Hutchinson described the man as about, 5ft 6" in height and 34 or 35 years of age, with A dark complexion and dark moustache turned up at the ends. Wearing a long Astrakhan coat, a white collar with black necktie, in which was affixed a horseshoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons over button boots and displayed from his waistcoat a massive gold chain. His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it. He had a heavy moustache curled up, and dark eyes and eyelashes, he had no side whiskers and his chin was clean shaven. He looked like a foreigner. He carried a small parcel in his hand, about 8 inches long and it had a strap round it, he had it tightly grasped in his left hand, it looked as though it was covered in dark American cloth. He carried in his right hand, which he laid upon the woman's shoulder, a pair of brown kid gloves. One thing I noticed, and that was that he walked very softly."

Hutchinson noticed a lot. But he did NOT notice the window must've glowed brightly from this fire.

How could he have left out that detail? How could he be so observant but did not question this bright light from the window. He did not wonder what was going on in there that such a fire was burning? Why did he not question where she got such an amount of kindling? Why would two people having a sexual encounter be so involved in making the room so bright? Surely the fire needed tending? How did he not question the room itself may have been on fire?

I have been wondering about this for a while. I am not saying I believe Hutchinson to be a liar, but I do wonder how could someone stand outside a room with suspicion, someone who was so careful as to remember such details of clothing and NEVER question the reason for this fire? Not even mention he saw the evidence of such a fire? Something is missing here, I think.

Because Hutch (if he was not the killer) left before the killer really fired it up. I go with Abberlines reasoning here and if you account for about 4:00 am being the time of the murder based on the heard cries than it pretty much explains why no one saw the light of the blazing fire-it was not cranked up until after 4:00.

[The Good Michael]

I have been wondering about this for a while. I am not saying I believe Hutchinson to be a liar, but I do wonder how could someone stand outside a room with suspicion, someone who was so careful as to remember such details of clothing and NEVER question the reason for this fire? Not even mention he saw the evidence of such a fire? Something is missing here, I think.

Two things: 1, Where Hutchinson would have been standing had no view of either window which were both facing into the court towards the dust bin. Hutch says he was standing outside the court watching and would have not even seen a blazing fire had there been one in the back. From the Evening News of the 14th "He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."

2, Clothing doesn't burn brightly, it smolders more than it burns. With the dust bin area obscuring Kelly's windows pretty much and with the coat hanging in one window, I doubt the light would have been much more than what a second candle might give off.

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Barbara. I was wondering how we can be certain that the fire was that night rather than some other night?

Cheers.
LC

Hi LC

The testimony was that the fire was still warm when the investigators were in the room. And that the fire had evidently been so hot that it burned the spout off the kettle.

Chris

[Carol]

Hello Barbara. I was wondering how we can be certain that the fire was that night rather than some other night?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn!
A very good question indeed!
Carol

[Carol]

Hi Beowolf,

What if the fire was burning fiercely during daylight? The sun would have risen about 7 a.m. (I think!).

Carol