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

[Beowulf]

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.

[Rubyretro]

I think that there was an overcoat hanging in front of the window for starters.

No one else mentioned a suspiciously bright light shining out into the Court either.

[Beowulf]

I think that there was an overcoat hanging in front of the window for starters.

No one else mentioned a suspiciously bright light shining out into the Court either.

I find that fact that no one else noticed a fire like that odd. Wouldn't light escape around the outside folds of the coat?

When I run my fireplace with the curains closed, heavy as they are there is some indication I have the fire going around the outside of the curtains.

[lynn cates]

which?

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

Cheers.
LC

[Carol]

Hi Beowolf,

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

Carol

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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]

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.