The fire in the grate...

[CitizenX]

Have you seen any of these articles since ? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."

Hi Jerry,

This is good question and another strange case.....the newspaper quote is directly from the inquest testimony btw.

Maria mentions she saw the overcoat in a room in the court not in Marys room. Either somebody took it before the murder or the police didn't lock down the crime scene and somebody took it....but theres one thing about this murder we do know...the Police were more on the ball and did lock down the scene till late afternoon. Even then they padlocked the door and left 2 constables to watch....how did the coat disappear?

Kevin

[CitizenX]

Hello Michael, all.

I too think the killer burned them. The clothes couldn't have all been burned a while back because then the ashes would have to be cold, so Abberline wouldn't have thought there had been a fire at all.

Who said the ashes were warm?

The room wasn't broken into until 1.30pm which is maybe 8hrs after the fire had ended...maybe longer.

Coals could possibly still have some heat but clothes? i'm not so sure. Anyway i'm sure I read somewhere that Abberline sifted the ashes the next day, on the Saturday.

kevin

[jerryd]

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

Here is one account from the Daily Telegraph. Other papers have similar accounts, I just happened to pick this one.

"Maria Harvey, 3, New-court, Dorset-street, stated: I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly. I slept at her house on Monday night and on Tuesday night. All the afternoon of Thursday we were together.

Were you in the house when Joe Barnett called ? - Yes. I said, "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again," and I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crêpe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girl's white petticoat.

Have you seen any of these articles since ? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."


jerryd

[paul emmett]

Did the killer burn them? I think yes

Aside from the clothes Mary wore that night, what else did she own, and keep in that room? Dont know.
Did the killer burn them to cover up burning something else first? In other words, were they added to create heat to burn something else? Possible
Was there ever a bright fire that night? Not one that was noticeable

Hello Michael, all.

I too think the killer burned them. The clothes couldn't have all been burned a while back because then the ashes would have to be cold, so Abberline wouldn't have thought there had been a fire at all.

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.

[jerryd]

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.

There was one article of clothing that Maria left with Mary that didn't get burned, a black overcoat. It ended up in a "room in the court". Maria saw this black overcoat after the murder of Mary.

Why did the overcoat disappear from Mary's room and the other articles Maria left didn't?

jerryd

Its an interesting question Kevin. The items that were identifiable were not wood, or paper, and they would burn without producing much light..but there would be smoke. Were her windows locked when she came home,...or did the killer open one or both, and after shutting them before leaving, lock them.

Did the killer burn them? I think yes
Did he think he was burning Marys clothing? Key question.
Aside from the clothes Mary wore that night, what else did she own, and keep in that room? Dont know.
Did the killer burn them to cover up burning something else first? In other words, were they added to create heat to burn something else? Possible
Was there ever a bright fire that night? Not one that was noticeable.

I think on Maria, she might have felt Marys room safer for the clothes than her new digs, and they had spent the entire afternoon together in her room, which had a water pump just outside, and those kinds of courts had washing lines strung all around them. I think they were there because Mary and her washed them. Maria did give Mary Jane money that day.

Cheers.

[CitizenX]

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.

What if the clothes were burnt by somebody in an argument long before Mary was murdered. It's very strange that although jack is supposed to have burnt the clothes for light or whatever reason, he leaves Marys clothes neatly folded on a chair at the end of the bed......

Also Abberline says "a large amount of womens clothing was burnt in the grate" why say that when the clothes left by Harvey were primariliy mens clothes....

In domestic arguments it's quite often that the couple destroy each others clothes...maybe thats why the only unburnt clothes in the room were the ones worn by Mary..

Kevin

[Supe]

Bolo,

In the opening sentence of the post I made it clear I doubted cannel coal had anything to do with the situation in Kelly's room. Simply a pedantic point keyed by the fact that I have used the product at various times in an open fireplace.

Whether Kelly's was an open fireplace, fuelled only by wood remains an interesting question. Certainly, burning coal was a key element of the "peasouper" fogs that plagued London and was the fuel of choice at the time.

Don.

[bolo]

Bolo,

Again, coal cannot be used in an open fireplace like the one in Mary's little room

While I doubt it has bearing on the fire in Mary's room, for the record there is "cannel coal," a bituminous coal that can (and is) burned in open grates and fireplaces. I know because I've done it many times.

Don.

Somehow I've missed your reply, sorry for that.

I've read up on cannel coal, apparently it's a special type of coal with an excess amount of hydrogen that burns with a bright light and leaves little ash behind.

According to some bits of info I've found in the "Virtual Encyclopaedia of Greater Manchester in the Third Millennium", cannel coal was mainly used for lighting:

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/celebs/engineers3.html

(Scroll down to the paragraph on Sir Roger Bradshaigh).

Quote:

"The material was smooth, hard, and could be worked and carved, by hand or turned on a lathe, and made into ornaments. Its development as a material came into its own in the early 19th Century, where its high illuminating power was ideal for the crude domestic burners of the day, before the incandescent gas mantle was available. [...] It was widely used for domestic lighting throughout the region and gradually lost favour as the increasingly widespread use of coal gas made it obsolete.".

In short, I don't think Mary used cannel coal in her fireplace but stuck to wood, paper and ... clothing?

/grate nerd mode

[Natalie Severn]

Now that is one bad image.

c.d.

.......but at least it makes a change from them punching each other on the nose eh!

I can assure you Sam that I am doing just that. The fire may have been untended to since slightly before 1:30am, and perhaps was a low hot fire anyway since she hadnt tended it for quite some time if out until 11:45pm,...and the fact that neither of the women that pass right by her door after that notice any reflected light on the white wall opposite her window covered by something akin to cheesecloth...can be used to substantiate that.

This is not about Mary Jane going out Sam, but if she did, thats also why no-one noticed any light, she wasnt there. The alternative is that she didn't leave, and went to sleep.

Im not sure to what point Bolo was making you wanted me to address, but Im fairly sure that Mary didnt burn her own clothing to sustain a fire...the little she now owned, and Im also fairly sure a hat and skirt thrown on a low fire would create little more than smoke and some heat. Not the best combination in a 10 X10.

Nor do I think she burned the hat and skirt anyway, its quite possible she helped Maria wash that skirt earlier in the day. The fire was likely low and hot all day to keeping boiling water for washing, if thats how they spent all afternoon together.

With only the last pass of Mary Ann Cox we can say there was no bright fire going on at 3am. And Sarah didnt see one around 2am. I know this is heading down one of your premise type roads,...such as, the fire could have been re-started and then died down during that hour.However, without any evidence that there was a fire that anyone would or did notice from the time she came home until 3am, it would seem if at all, it was rekindled with hat and skirt after that time. Maybe around 4-4:30 would be my guess.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

From 1:30am until 3am there is no way a large fire would be unnoticed by any of the 3 women who testify as to their experiences in the court that night.

Disagree. Fundamentally. For reasons given above.

Mike - please think.

[bolo]

Whenever you put it, the fire must have been very important to the killer.

Gee, I should have stuck to the "fire in the grate"-line of events with my previous posts and not drag Blotchy, Hutch and Mary in there....

Anyway, I agree with you. Taking a closer look at the fire in the grate and the molten kettle sprout could be helpful in the end to get an idea about the line of events that night, that's why I'm still trying to find out more details about it, difficult as it may be. At the moment I'm thinking about a new practical experiment but I'm quite sure that it's near impossible to find a simple LVP water kettle for a reasonable price... of course it's possible that I'm chasing yet another phantom here, the sprout may have come off a few days before already, or Mary burned old and torn pieces of clothing herself, was too lazy to clean the fireplace and simply lit another fire on top of it, etc.pp...

But hey, aren't we all phantom chasers in one way or another?

There, a gull!!!

* runs away

Tom the comment about AP's talent was because I needed to know that you knew you werent superior in all ways to the rest of us. You did good,...and you let a little of the less arrogant and infinitely more agreeable TW out. And Im 50 next week...so your still a kid to me.

As for the fire, or the lack of one, what is put on the fire to burn is what determines how much light is given off. It is an error to suggest all materials burn the same length or at the same temperature, which usually corresponds to the brightness it gives off....and there were fabric remnants in the fire. Anyone who has made a hearth fire themselves, and thrown anything made of fabric on, if the fire is hot, it will catch and burn completely to ash. Some fabrics dont catch fire easily, or stay alit....but all will burn to ash with time, over a slow steady fire.

It seems Mary Jane would only be able to afford the most inexpensive means of fuel, and some last year suggested dried dung as a possibility,....something that would produce some heat, but little light.

From 1:30am until 3am there is no way a large fire would be unnoticed by any of the 3 women who testify as to their experiences in the court that night. Whether they looked specifically or not....at least 3 passes from Mary Ann, One from Sarah, and Elizabeth starts the "dark and quiet" clock running. Mary Janes curtains were muslin....semi transparent, and again, since no-one seems to get this significance, Marys windows faced a white wall two stories high.

At least until around 3am, there was no large fire at all.

Im wondering how the people who still believe Hutchinson's suspect story explain his being with Mary in her room in the dark when Mary Ann comes in at 3.

Best regards.

[Chris Scott]

Kevin
Re: your post #53 and the appearance of Kelly's fireplace
Below is the Reynold's News sketch of the room from November 1888
Chris