The fire in the grate...

[Carrotty Nell]

To me the above points lead me to the scenerio that Kelly was alive during waking hours, and that she left her room obtained milk.lit the fire with any fuel she had, went out saw Maxwell, allowed herself to be picked up by a market porter around 845am, suggested to him that he called on her in say 15minutes saying' Second door on the right my Love, down the court'.

But Richard, this is a substantial fire we are talking about, even an inferno, according to Inspector Abberline who felt the ashes later. It must have been visible in some way from outside in the court, even as only a glow behind the improvised curtain. It is possible to believe that if it had burned in the small hours, say 4.30 to 5.00 am, that no-one was in the court to see it, and it had died down by the time Elizabeth Prater went out for her drink. It is much harder to believe that it went unseen in the morning hours when the whole neighbourhood would have been stirring.

[Fisherman]

...not to mention how much harder it would have been to sneak out of the court unseen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

. . . which is why a later time for the murder seems a tad bit inconvenient.

--J.D.

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

Sorry, long post, but I don't post often so you'll have to put up with it!

These are obviously just personal thoughts on the matter as there really is not enough hard evidence to say anything for certain -but it doesn't hurt to ponder now and again.

Starting at the right end of the sequence of events, I think it has to be almost certain that Mary lit the fire. Starting fires in those conditions and more importantly in those grates takes bloody ages.

You have to sod about, screwing up old newspaper into just the right size balls, put kindling in, put the coal on exactly right, then light it, hold newspaper or something over the front to give it a good start and even then it takes ages to actually catch. Not only that, but if there are ashes in it from the night before you have to clean them out, otherwise it won't start at all! Bearing all that in mind, I sincerely doubt that Jack would stop and play boy scouts in the middle of his crime.

Having said that, I can't even imagine Mary drunk going to all that trouble, so best guess is that she lit it earlier in the evening, possibly just before Joe and Maria Harvey/Lizzie Albrook dropped in so that she could put a kettle on and give Maria at least a cuppa, even if she couldn't get rid of Joe fast enough.

We don't really know for certain that Mary did go out looking for punters that night, but we do know that she brought Mr Blotchy back for whatever reason, and possibly Mr Astrakhan, so it would seem sensible on her part to have a fire at least idling in the grate so that when she came back it would just be a case of putting a bit more coal on. This does fit in with her comment to Mr Astrakhan about him being comfortable.

So by the time Jack got into Mary's room, by whatever means......I would say that the fire was there, just about, ready to be stoked up again.

Now back to Magpie's suggestion, which is a really interesting one. Did Jack do it to draw attention to the room? I suppose it's possible........but as someone has pointed out, why not just leave the door open. (Again possible that he did and it actually slammed shut after he had gone).

The layout of the room and yard might be important here, if Jack intended for someone to see the light.

Walking down into the court from Dorset Street both of Mary's windows would not be visible as they were around the corner to the right. The window nearest the court entrance was the smaller of the two and covered by the man's pilot coat, which would probably not have let much light through. The other window though which was directly next to the pump itself in the pump yard was larger and we don't really know what it was covered with. Walking along the court towards the entrance the windows could both be clearly seen, but they were both covered. Whatever it was it must have been thick enough to keep out prying eyes. (There is possibly a separate discussion here about visibility, but we won't get into that here!)

One thing we can say is that whatever lighting conditions Jack worked in, he must have felt fairly confident that no-one could actually see him at work through that big window, or he would have covered that with one of the many pieces of bedding that were at the foot of the bed.

My best guess is that Jack lit the fire just as he was about to leave, for some reason only known to himself. Perhaps it was to burn evidence, perhaps to attract attention, it's impossible to say of course.

What I do think though is that he would probably not have lit it until he was about to leave, because burning thick clothing like that must have thrown out a fair bit of black smoke and possibly set fire to the chimney. I don't know if anyone has tried to burn heavy clothing on a fire, but it smoulders, and throws out tons of smoke and stinks, especially if it's a bit damp. I can't see Jack wanting to risk it personally. If he did it just as he was about to leave, it wouldn't matter much.

Of course we have Abberline suggesting that Jack used the fire to get more light, which throws a bit of a spanner in the works, but that was obviously only a guess on Abberline's part as he couldn't say for certain why Jack did light it. Jack had certainly proved he could work in darkness on more than one occasion. There was a candle right over the top of the fireplace. If Jack had needed light he would have seen it when he went to stoke up the fire, so it seems daft that he didn't use it.

The only thing against the idea that it might have been lit just to attract attention is that if he left in the hours of darkness is that it would probably not have been easily visible by people going in and out of the court, and surely he would have ripped the pilot coat off of the smaller window as he left so that it was more clearly seen? If he left in daylight hours, then it's unlikely anyone would have seen it anyway.

Sorry Richard, much as I love you, and as good as your arguments are, I still don't think that Jack could have killed Mary in daylight hours.

That's about it really. Makes a change for me to be able to post on something though!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

Long time to chat!

I think any fire-feeding on Kelly's part had more to do with a desire to keep warm on an miserable November night that anything else. If the killer fuelled it thereafter, it was probably for the same reason, although it's quite possible that some additional light aided the killer when mutilating Kelly. No client would have been "comfortable" squashed up with another person on a single bed in a Spitalfields hovel, regardless of whether or not Kelly advertised #13 as such...and she probably didn't!

Best wishes,
Ben

[Bob Hinton]

How Long?

. I guess the only way to answer that question would be determination of how long the fire had been going. I am not sure anyone has any clue on that.



--J.D.

I hazard a guess at that in my book.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Ben,

I suppose an alternative scenario, of which there are too bloody many, is that the fire was barely alight when he entered, but that there was some fuel left by the side of the grate, which he used initially, (this fitting in with Abberline's suggestion) but that ran out (possible knowing how skint Mary was) and he started using the other bits gradually to keep it going. The only thing I can think of against this is the statement that the fire seemed to have been raging at some point, enough to melt the spout of the kettle, which would suggest a sudden influx of fuel that got out of control. That doesn't seem to tie in with someone just trying to keep warm and get some light.

Okay, got a brain ache now. This discussion tends to turn into a 'How big is the universe' very quickly.

Oh and Bob I'm just going to Amazon to buy your book. I've been meaning to for ages and keep forgetting. It does look like a terrific read. I don't even have to pay postage because I've got Amazon Prime!

Much Love

Jane

xxxxx

[Supe]

This question keeps popping up every few months and the same misconceptions are regularly applied, Perhaps not enough of us still actually burn wood or coal in fireplaces (though anyone who barbecues in their backyard should understand as well).

Whatever, a "roaring fire" was not needed. The heat from the glowing embers of a fire is more than enough to bake potatoes, grill a steak or nelt the solder in a cheap and empty kettle. And the key there is the word empty. So long as there water in a kettle it can boil away with no problems, but once the water is exhausted a good conductor of heat (like a metal kettle) will quickly become as hot as the embers (remember, quite hot enough to cook with) and any solder used to join spout to kettle body whose melting point is lower than the fire's retained temperature will immediately glaze and run and the pieces it had joined fall asunder.

And the remaining ashes from a fire will retain considerable heat many hours after all seems safe. That is why you are advised to bury the ashes from last night's fire before breaking camp when hiking in the woods.

Don.

[perrymason]

There never was any proof that the fire that was in Marys fireplace was large, that it was giving off much heat, or much light, at the time the killer must have been there. Abberline made the remark based upon the assumption that the fire melted that kettle spout that night, and that the killer must have needed light. The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted, neither do we know that he needed light.

Since there are remains of fabric found, it could not have been that intense, so it was likely smouldering when the hat and dress fabric were placed on the fire.

As far as a fire to draw attention to the rooms contents.....certainly doesnt jive with locking the door to prevent access to the body, and the curtains were closed...Bowyer needed to move them aside.

Abberline, Reid and some others sieved again Saturday morning, my feeling is to be sure that traces of the the heart that was discovered missing later Friday afternoon during the Volte Face...re-assembling? of Mary Jane....werent still in there.

IF Mary Jane never left after arriving home at 11:45 on the 8th, then it is certainly possible she slept from the time Prater walks the stairs until at least after Mary Ann comes in for the night, at around 3am. Any fire left unattended that long would be essentially useless as a light source.

Cheers all.

[Supe]

Michael,


The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted,

No, Michael, we dont. But, remember that first, the spout was not melted, simply the solder holding spout to kettle. Secondly, while a spoutless kettle is of some utility, keeping spout and kettle together for anything but decorative purposes is rather pointless.

Finally, give Abberline credit for some intelligence and observational powers. If he he deduced the spout and kettle had separated that night he probably had good reasons for saying that. Like the spout being in just the right place it would be had it separated from the kettle during its last use, remains of solder (which would have long disappeared after repeated spoutless usage) running down from the join and so on.

We don't know when spout and kettle separated, but if the police on the scene were sure it had happened that night there is really no reason to doubt their deduction.

Don.

[paul emmett]

Finally, give Abberline credit for some intelligence and observational powers. If he he deduced the spout and kettle had separated that night he probably had good reasons for saying that.

Hello, all.

I think we should give Abberline even more credit. The Physics Prof here says that in 1888 Abberline would have used Newton's Law of Cooling to judge how hot the fire had been. Since this law relates temp of fire, temp of ashes, and time since fire, Abberline would have thought the fire was hotter than it actually had been IF he misjudged the time of the fire.

I would say then that this is another reason for the fire to be going, say, in the early morning.

[perrymason]

A a large fire in the fireplace left unattended would cover the hot ash in cooled ash, as it is exposed to the ambient air....and theres no way Abberline could know how large or hot that fire was at murder time...only that the ashes were warm after 1:30pm.

For all we know Mary could have stoked it all day, to boil water for the clothes that Maria brought over, and left it to simmer when she retired. She may have melted the solder at that time...or it may have been like that all week for all we know.

Abberline concluded the fire was for light....is that an accepted opinion as well? Because if so,...then the killer certainly didnt spark the bonfire until after Mary Ann Cox came in for the night at around 3. No light was seen by anyone in her room from 1:30 to 3:00 at least. 3 witnesses at different times. Seeya A Man.

Forgive me if I take credit from the opinions of Policeman on hearth fires and cooling times.

Cheers.

[Tom_Wescott]

Abberline made the remark based upon the assumption that the fire melted that kettle spout that night, and that the killer must have needed light. The fact is we dont know when the spout was melted

I'm with Don and Paul on giving Abberline more credit. Let's not forget he and his subordinates interviewed all of Mary's close associates. Since the fire and the kettle were key pieces of evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that he reached his conclusion based upon inquiry as to the state of Mary's kettle in the days and hours prior to her murder. Do we have an affidavit to this effect? No, but we have the investigating officer's firm conclusion, so we can infer from that. For some reason, the handful of people who adamantly claim Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim are also the same who think the investigators were a bunch of blind idiots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tji]

Hi Tom

I'm wounded


For some reason, the handful of people who adamantly claim Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim are also the same who think the investigators were a bunch of blind idiots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't believe I have ever stated that the Police were idiots, in fact I have some admiration for them in the face of adversity.

While I shouldn't really talk for the others I think I am safe in saying just because we question things that aren't conclusive doesn't mean we think people are idiots.

tj

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

I think we should give Abberline even more credit. The Physics Prof here says that in 1888 Abberline would have used Newton's Law of Cooling to judge how hot the fire had been.

Whilst I'm sure Abberline deserves plaudits in many areas, I'm not sure where, in his career as a watch-maker then policeman, he'd have needed to have learned Newton's Law of Cooling, still less that he'd have used it in any practical sense. Abberline only noted that there were "traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off". He gives no impression that he used anything other than his observation of the detached spout to gauge, qualitatively rather than quantitatively, the likely magnitude of the fire.