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

[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

[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

[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

[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."

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Chris

Dave

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi FM
The most likely scenario in my mind is that mary and Blotchy started the fire when they got in and then Blotchy fired it up a bit more later after he killed her. Seems to be the most simple and reasonable explanation.

[SarahLee]

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

Indeed, what necessitates there being an existing fire at all the night before? Quite feasibly there could be enough remaining heat in the ashes of an earlier fire for some items of clothing tossed out of the way into the grate to begin to smolder away to ash.

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...

Thanks Dave.
And as stated earlier, a couple of links to fires caused by improperly disposed of ashes. There are plenty more out there.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=894&dat=19990128&id=C7sKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PU0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2800,3021833

http://www.lindemannchimneyservice.com/95-improper-ash-disposal-causes-fires.html

http://www.newsmagazinenetwork.com/2012041017684/hot-ashes-lead-to-30000-in-home-damage/

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

Chris, thank you for that and the extract from "Will the Real Mary Kelly. . . ?" That grate is indeed a lot smaller than I'd imagined.

An old school friend had one of those old cast iron fireplaces in her bedroom - but with MJK's room being downstairs (and what I'd always pictured as a partitioned off section of what was once a larger room) I'd pictured the fireplace as being far larger.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
In my view the most likely scenarios are as follows.
A] That Mary lit the fire when returning to her room with the gent, Hutchinson saw, in order to make him feel comfy , and the killer fuelled the fire with articles of clothing whilst he carried out his fantasies .
B] The fire was lit by Mary around 8am upon awakening , and was killed not long after boiling water for tea, possibly around 9am, the killer burning clothing to give the police the idea that he needed light, having an alibi for a night slaying.
What ever scenario we choose, it is almost certain that Kelly lit the fire ,as it appears her boots were close to the grate, which gives the obvious clue, that her intention was to dry wet foot-ware , so obviously placed them there when the fire was alight, and being alive.
Regards Richard.

[Beowulf]

Hi FM
The most likely scenario in my mind is that mary and Blotchy started the fire when they got in and then Blotchy fired it up a bit more later after he killed her. Seems to be the most simple and reasonable explanation.

From the inquest of MJK:

3:00 AM: "Mrs. Cox returns home yet again. It is raining hard. There is no sound or light coming from Kelly's room. Cox does not go back out but does not go to sleep. Throughout the night she occasionally hears men going in and out of the court. She told the inquest "I heard someone go out at a quarter to six. I do not know what house he went out of (as) I heard no door shut."

No sound or light. That would support the fact the fire was started after he killed her, if it was blotchy I don't know, but it likely was after 3:00 am, if you believe this woman's memory and testimony.

How he got in the room is more reasonable, she let him in. No climbing through the window and out of it again. If it were pouring rain possibly no one would hear the door shut.

I've always found the pouring rain spooky, and wonder if it thundered. What a night for a murder. The shadows on the wall must've made for a macabre dance.

[Cogidubnus]

I do wonder if what is being portrayed in the illustration of Mary Kelly's room, is in fact a small black-lead open range...bearing in mind this room had a previous function (before the house was subdivided) could it originally have been a back kitchen or scullery...for the benefit of youngsters google cast iron range!

The picture certainly reminds me of an arrangement I've seen a couple of times wherein there is a small enclosed cast iron box each side of a raised open fireplace...this enables bread to be baked or meals to be slowly heated...not to be confused with a closed black lead range or "portable" black lead range (which as the owner of a working example, I can assure you it's certainly not!)...

Just a thought...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

PS

Black lead ranges work best with coke (which was very cheap in the late 19th century), but will burn virtually anything...properly damped with tealeaves or vegetable matter (or damp clothes for that matter!) they will easily "stay-in" overnight, and the embers will remain warm for even longer than a domestic fire

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

PPS - for clarification

I've just found the arrangement I mentioned described as a Cast Iron Hob Grate...a rather more fancy example is shown at:-

http://www.britainsheritage.co.uk/an...hob-grates.htm

I envisaged a rather simpler example, but this gives the flavour...

Dave

[Wickerman]

1) Embers can continue to smoulder and retain heat for many, many hours after a fire has been extinguished.
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.

Agreed on both counts. There has never been any firm indication of a blazing fire in the room and a smoldering fire can do just as much damage as we have had described.
The only caveat I have towards a smoldering fire is the supply of air.

Apparently the chimney functioned as required because the room was not filled with smoke. So there is an exit for the air supply.
There were two gaping holes in the windows so outside air was able to enter uncontrolled.
Both these conditions provide an adequate air flow for the fire, so I have to ask myself, how could anyone prevent a smoldering fire from flaring up given a more than adequate supply of continuous air?
A fire generally smolders when the air supply is restricted, but it wasn't, there was both an incoming supply & and outgoing chimney.
A heavy coat hanging as a curtain will not restrict incoming air, in fact it should create a suitable draft.

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.

Yes. Which also supports the argument that the fire was lit after Blotchy, perhaps consistent with Kelly bringing someone else back home after Blotchy.

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.

We don't know how close the spout was to the fire. The spout may have been soldered on to the kettle, so the spout just came apart because the solder melted, not that the spout actually melted away.

Apologies for the rambling thinking aloud.

You had some good thoughts.
Regards, Jon S.

[Semper_Eadem]

My question is why would anybody notice the fire in Mary's room. Unless her room was on fire why would anybody look in to check. seems to me that the people in or around Miller's Court of been too tired or busy to notice anything. Even the witnesses who heard Mary scream murder didn't go and investigate which leads me to believe that a mentality of people minding their own business was at work here.

[Abby Normal]

From the inquest of MJK:

3:00 AM: "Mrs. Cox returns home yet again. It is raining hard. There is no sound or light coming from Kelly's room. Cox does not go back out but does not go to sleep. Throughout the night she occasionally hears men going in and out of the court. She told the inquest "I heard someone go out at a quarter to six. I do not know what house he went out of (as) I heard no door shut."

No sound or light. That would support the fact the fire was started after he killed her, if it was blotchy I don't know, but it likely was after 3:00 am, if you believe this woman's memory and testimony.

How he got in the room is more reasonable, she let him in. No climbing through the window and out of it again. If it were pouring rain possibly no one would hear the door shut.

I've always found the pouring rain spooky, and wonder if it thundered. What a night for a murder. The shadows on the wall must've made for a macabre dance.

Hi Beowulf
I do beleive her testimony and with the other two witnesses hearing the cry at about 4:00 am which would be when she was killed then it seems if there was a large fire this is when it was stoked up and the clothes burned. So no one saw the fire because at that hour all the witnesses were gone.