The fire in the grate...

[paul emmett]

Hi, BlackKat.

There was a pre-crash thread which concluded that folded clothes was part of the myth; I believe the original statement was that they were placed on the chair, and placed went to folded and then to folded neatly. Whatever, they were still present and avoided. (I missed but concur with Sam's post.)

There was another thread which tried to say that paper was burned by discussing the ashes. But I don't think we have much first hand info on the ashes.

At the Inquest, Lewis talks of her bonnet first with a strange juxtaposition."I was in the room when Joe Barnett called I went away I left my bonnet there. I knew Joe Barnett--I left some clothes in the room." She makes it sound like she wants to get away from Joe, and just leaves her clothes behind.

I agree with you and Michael about the fire not being for light, but since you and I also agree that the killer started the fire, or at least used it, we are still short one motive. What's the letter theory?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Kat,

Also - clothes folded neatly. Did Mary fold the clothes neatly?

There is reasonable cause to believe that the "neatly-foldedness" of the clothes was an example of mid/late 20th century poetic licence. The earliest mention of "folded" I could find amongst my Ripper books was in McCormick (1959), and the word "neatly" doesn't seem to crop up until Rumbelow in the 1970s. Whilst I don't pretend to have the most exhaustive collection of Ripper literature, I certainly can't find the phrase "neatly folded" in any earlier books in my possession than these, nor in the contemporary news reports or inquest records I've read.

[Blackkat]

Citizen X - What i always find strange is Maria Harvey never says why she left the clothes with Mary. She had her own place in New Court so could easily have took them there.

Me too, always thought that was strange.

Also - clothes folded neatly. Did Mary fold the clothes neatly?

I too think the killer burned them.

What else did she own? I find it interesting that Abberline says, "I have taken an inventory of what was in the room," and then in the same sentence goes on to say, "there had been a large fire . . .." Does this suggest that there wasn't much to inventory cuz it had all been burned?

Cover up something else? For me, either that or the clothes burned were themselves evidence. MJK's clothes by the fire seem conspicuously avoided.

Large fire? Not before three.

I thought Harvey's overcoat was covering the broken window in Kelly's room.

Paul, maybe some letters were burned too. I don't think there was a fire before 3 am. I think she could have been killed a wee bit later than most think too. There had to be more in the fire than the clothes. I don't think Jack needed a good fire to see what he was doing. Something small would have been enough after all he had been doing the kills in low light before. What's a few more cuts. That's if MJK was even killed by Jack.

This irony is beyond my ability to continue with, Ive suggested and fought for the notion that the clothes would not fan any "fire" but instead smother it, and I'm difficult and impossible to deal with.

Don says the exact same thing after scolding me for my opinion, and gets lauds.

S'ok....Its similar to getting scolded for reminding everyone that there are no recorded sightings of any large fire by anyone that night, and 2 witnesses walked past Marys room, one more than once. Fanciful suuposition huh? Clearly Abberline says there was, and although Hutchinson said Mary was in her room with a man when the room is still dark and quiet...her not being seen leaving is immaterial to the right answer.

I may pop in again if someone else raises a logical rational point like the ones that I got shat on for, and gets applause.

Last thing...a kettle without a spout could easily have been used to transport water from the pump to the fire to the tin bath, which when filled with boiled water, .......

Regards.

[Magpie]

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

Good thought, Don!

Don,

I read your reasoning on the kettle, and the coal, and I did realize coal was a fossil fuel when I wrote it...since it or dung was far more likely than wood.

Your idea of smothering, not stoking the fire, is exactly what I alluded to, based on a low fire and period fabrics.

And I never said Abberline was an idiot, just that he was no expert opinion on when the kettle spout solder became useless as you say, or the fire and its potential light emitting properties. He guessed.

And the spout and a "bright" fire have no direct relationship...a relatively lightless low fire could have provided longer term heat and more likely have caused the fault.

Best regards.

[Christine]

Michael,

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

Now that's an interesting idea. Order these events chronologically: Jack enters the room, the fire is started, the kettle boils dry and starts to melt, someone puts the clothes on the fire, Jack leaves.

Was there tea in the room? Why did someone put the kettle on the fire in the first place?

[Supe]

Michael,

My tone, as well, is one of frustrastion. We have been over the separation of the spout from the kettle body (almost certainly the solder melted, not the spout), the limited utility of a spoutless kettle, the purposelessness of keeping spout and kettle together on the fire and the very good reasons Abberline might have had to think the damage to the kettle had occurred that night to no avail. Clearly, you prefer to consider Abberline a blithering idiot and, moreover, one who was at the scene as opposed to you (and, admittedly, all the rest of us on the message boards). You are free to do so, but I no longer choose to discuss it with you.

And by the way, coal IS a fossil fuel; wood, which I assume was your alternative, is not.

Finally, I throw out a different possibility to everyone. Could it be that we are looking at things backwards? That is, might Jack have placed clothes on the fire not for added light (or heat) but to actually lower the level of light by damping it? That could account for the fire smoulodering away.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

Didnt appreciate the tone Sam.

My tone was one of frustration, not anger, and neither am I mocking - I'm pointing out basic truths, Mike.

But, as you bring up appreciation or lack thereof, I have to say that I don't appreciate being gainsaid by spurious counter-arguments and assertions.

Didnt appreciate the tone Sam.

The ONLY evidence of any kind of fire that night is ash and fabric remnants...clearing showing that the fire was not hot enough or had enough open flame to consume the fabric completely. That suggests a low, hot fire, created by coal or fossil fuels...the cheapest fuel sources. Which is entirely consistent with the kind of fire one would want to continually boil water, perhaps for washing. That kind of fire does not produce much if any light, and when untended, would simmer without emitting any light.

Period Clothing that is thrown on an untended fossil fuel fire, would smoulder and smoke, but produce little if any light.

There is no evidence that a large bright fire existed that specific night at all, there are speculative comments made by a Senior investigator...the same one who puts his foot in again that same day by buying Hutchinson's story. No-one knows when the spout was melted, nor do fabric remnants in the ash suggest a fire hot or bright enough to consume it completely. They could have been tossed on a low fire, and smouldered there all morning,...never emitting light.

We know a light was seen after Mary came home, seems you think its more reasonable to think that was fireflies from the ash stirring,.. than the lighting of a candle, which was the main source of light in the room at night, as in most homes in the area at the time. To each his own.

We also know the light was not seen by 1:30. Nor was any light seen by anyone again...if a large bright fire happened at all, it happened after Mary Ann is finished and in the court....at around 3am. Because she would clearly have seen light cast upon the white wall opposite her Marys windows.

Youve dismissed the value of every eye witness to the condition of Marys room that night Sam. People in the court, people who knew her, people walking right past her door.

Thats your business....but mocking my account that fits the known evidence doesnt make your own opinions more sound. Nor does it make Abberline a misunderstood fire expert.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bolo

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that a laundress like Harvey leaves clothes in Mary's room to be washed. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

We don't know that Harvey left them there to be washed by Kelly - only that they were "to be washed": she doesn't specify by whom. This might have meant that Harvey left them with Kelly for safe keeping, intending to pick them up the next day, in order to wash them herself. Indeed, the Times states that Harvey had left the clothing "in the care of the deceased". There are quite a few reasons why she may have needed to do this - e.g. Harvey was expecting company, she mistrusted her fellow lodgers at New Court, etc.

[bolo]

Just came back from re-reading Sugden's and Begg's chapters on MJK and found that I've mixed up the bit about the pieces of clothing that were in Mary's room at that night. Of course they were not given to her by Joe but Maria Harvey left them there... god I'm a n00b... Ah well, I blame it on the beer... don't drink and post, eh...

According to Sugden, Abberline found a piece of velvet and the charred frame (or brim?) of a woman's felt hat when he sieved the ashes on Sunday, various press reports speak of other pieces of clothing such as remnants of a skirt.

Sugden also hints that the clothes may have been found and removed by the police, at least they did with the coat Harvey left at Miller's Court 13.

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that a laundress like Harvey leaves clothes in Mary's room to be washed. Anyone care to fill me in on that?

[Sam Flynn]

But I think it is material what the source of that light was seen by Cox, because if its fire based, and it was bright when Cox saw it, it will still be bright even if Mary decides to sleep before 1:30.

No, it won't, unless Mary decided to stoke it or poke it again, to cause it to flare up just at the moment when Prater fleetingly walked past the partition on her way to bed.

That is not consistent with a light seen by Cox on her way out, and none seen by Prater on her way up.

But, as I said earlier, the default for a coal fire is a muted orange glow, Prater would only fleetingly have been in a position to catch even the brightest glow as she headed up the wooden hill to crash out in bed, and Cox would only have been in a favourable position to see the light in the window (as she testifies) if she were heading out of the Court and staring the windows straight between the - um - panes.

Oy!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It was Abberline's contention that the fire in Room 13 provided light for the murderer to see what he was doing. At a glance, it makes sense.

What doesn't make sense were the materials [fuel] at hand for providing that light. Clothes tend to smoulder rather than burn brightly. There is also the logistical problem of the murderer having to maintain a suitable light level whilst carrying out his dastardly deeds. Constantly stoking the fire must have been a source of frustration—maintaining maximum light whilst taking care not to burn the house down. And why not move the kettle out of the way? Also, whilst we're at it, why not burn the pilot coat found in Room 13?

Come to think of it, why not burn Millers Court to the ground? Charred remains—nobody recognizable—job done. But no, the murderer leaves the disfigured corpse for someone to conveniently discover at a premium moment and is never heard from again. At the very least I'd have thought Millers Court, the murderer's "triomphe de la période", worthy of another missive to Central News.

Regards,

Simon

Ok Sam, fair complaints.

But I think it is material what the source of that light was seen by Cox, because if its fire based, and it was bright when Cox saw it, it will still be bright even if Mary decides to sleep before 1:30.

That is not consistent with a light seen by Cox on her way out, and none seen by Prater on her way up.

Best regards Sam.