The fire in the grate...

[perrymason]

Its not a dogma Doc, its just I am the type of person who doesn't just hold on to things that he doesn't need, or that have proven to be useless over time.

Cheers again.

[Doctor X]

Wise decision.

My last sentence was not intended to imply it is "dogma" on your part that you doubt Stride is a Jack victim.

--J.D.

[paul emmett]

Paul...there is no record of any wet clothes in that room that night, so if you like the large fire idea yourself, perhaps factor in dry clothing.

So, about the fire. I said "damp," not "wet." And, Michael, I went for the dampness in the air because I DON'T like the idea of a large fire. I think Abberline was wrong, and even though Sam disagrees, I think Abberline was wrong because he felt that the fire was earlier than it actually was.

I like JTR starting the fire, because MJK wouldn't burn clothes, damp or dry.

I like small fire, because of time constraints and the fact that clothes don't burn so well, and the risk involved.

I don't like the fire for heat or light, because--see above.

I guess I think JTR used the small fire late, after the mutilations, to burn evidence.

[Doctor X]

What other source of light would Jack have assuming he did not have a "Bull's Eye" hidden somewhere?

--J.D.

[Magpie]

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).

Hi Jane!

I wasn't suggesting that Jack was trying to draw attention to the room in any way--just that he may have wanted to ensure that if someone did look into or enter the room there would be enough illumination to show off his handiwork and and guarantee the maximum level of shock for whoever stumbled across it.

[bolo]

Hi, bolo.

When? How? We don't know anything about wood or coal being burned. All we know is that there were clothes burned. And MJK couldn't have been burning clothes, so it must have been the killer. And Cox(nor Hut) didn't see light in the room, so it must have been started after 3:00. And the larger and longer the fire, the smaller the time frame.

And then there's "why?"

Again, coal cannot be used in an open fireplace like the one in Mary's little room, it takes an oven or stove for that. You can't just throw half a stone of coal in there and light it, it would take ages to get a decent fire going.

I also don't think that Mary burned the clothes herself but we can't completely rule out this possibility either, based on the little we know about the case.

Anyway, this is my idea of the timeline:

- around 11:45 pm:

> Mary returns home with Blotchy Man, lights the fire using paper and pieces of wood and puts the kettle on with water for tea (or washing) or pours water in the kettle that already hung over the fireplace. She starts to sing.

- around 12:30 am

> Blotchy man leaves Mary who is still singing while getting ready for bed.

- between 1 and 2 am:

> The wood is almost burned up, only a little water is left in the kettle, Mary is sleeping. The killer enters the room and attacks her.

> The killer throws pieces of clothing into the fire to either destroy evidence or light the scene to "properly" mutilate her, thus feeding the flames again.

- between 2 and 3 am:

> The water in the kettle is completely evaporated by now and the fire is still burning (not as bright as before), the solder points that hold the sprout in place start to melt.

> The solder has completely melted away and the sprout falls off.

This timeline is based on my experiences with open fireplaces, infos on the melting point of typical kettle solder and flame temperature, and Abberline's and Dr Bond's comments.

If the killer entered the room between 1 and 2 in the morning, it's possible that the blaze that could have been seen was over when Cox came home at 3 am. What's more, there was a lantern opposite Mary's door which could have masked the light coming from the (now much smaller) fire. Still, there must have been a larger fire at one point in time because clothing does not burn like dry paper, it needs quite a bit of heat to turn into ashes.

Now, if we follow Dr Bond's opinion on the time of death between 1 and 2 am (based on the food in her intestines and the fact that rigor mortis had already sat in when he examined her a few hours later), this timeline doesn't seem to be totally off but of course it's still speculation.

The line of events I've mentioned above also works with different times (e.g. starting after 3 am), even though a later time of death would infer with Dr Bond's post-mortem report. Since I have no medical training and Bond was right there and examined the body, I tend to believe his statements, at least they sound more plausible than some of the witness testimonies by Cox or Prater, not to mention Hutchinson's funny Astrakhan man story.

[Supe]

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.

[CitizenX]

Do we actually know what the fireplace looked like or is this all guess work?

If we are guessing...this is my 2 cents..

The room was described as probably a "scullery" at the rear of the original house. As a scullery is an annex of the kitchen theres a good chance that the fireplace was the older type which was a stove recessed into the wall rather than a living room type fireplace with surround..


kevin

[steje73]

This thread should have been called 'The Grate Fire of London.'


I'm sorry. I'll just go...

[Tom_Wescott]

And Im sure you do believe that of everyone here, only us 4 question some "accepted" beliefs about the cases.

There's a difference between 'questioning accepted beliefs' and making a mockery of the case for entertainment purposes. There are many who do the former, myself included, and some who do the latter - most of whom disappear after a short while, others who don't. Remember that I'm speaking specifically about the Stride case here and my run-ins on the board. If we were to stretch this to the Kelly case, the list of loonies would be as long as this thread.

Since you put me in with 2 authors of Ripper books, a historian of crime, and a very interested researcher, all who are interested in trying to find the truth... rather than just following like sheep the a** in front,.. Ill live with that though.

Historian of crime? I don't remember putting Jonathan Goodman on that list. Oh, you mean Glenn Andersson? He's an art historian...he just lets people believe he's a crime historian. As for being interested in finding the truth, have you ever actually read an AP Wolf post? Like the one where he has Liz Stride accidentally killing herself on a boot scraper? Classic stuff. Oh, and since authoring a book impresses you, let me add Karen Trenouth to the list. There, now you're counted among THREE Ripper authors.

I wish you could see how often your position of "correctness" makes me smile....its a little like the younger kid hanging with the older kids chiming in when they give an opinion on something....like frogs make great pets...and you wanting to be a part of their world saying....yeah, thats what I think too.

Why is it when someone gets backed into a corner, they use my age against me and call me a kid? What a lame copout. Are you aware that I'm now 34 years old? I'm practically an old man and you guys are still calling me a kid.

Its ok to have your own opinion Tom, as a matter of fact, Im sure its preferable to some of the many unproven ones that you support so vehemently.

That statement doesn't even make sense. You're blind with rage.

And as far as AP goes...you would be doing well if you had a fraction of his talent as a writer.

This is a fact. I've said before and will again that AP Wolf is the most talented writer on these boards. His book is one of the easiest and most enjoyable reads in the field. I'd kill for his talent! But consider that Patricia Cornwell is a great writer as well and you'll understand how little writing talent has to do with what we're discussing.

As for challenging accepted beliefs, consider that I'm the one who started the debate about the validity of Schwartz. I also showed how it's a probability that he was a member of the IWEC. I showed how every modern source has rendered Louis D's name wrong. I've shown (and will show more) how the popular conception of the IWEC men is wrong. I was also (to the best of my knowledge) the first to suggest that BS Man was actually a clubman, quite possibly Morris Eagle. Now, remind me again what you've contributed to the discussion?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Steje, that was hilarious. Sam Flynn should be kicking himself for not thinking of that one first!

[paul emmett]

The line of events I've mentioned above also works with different times (e.g. starting after 3 am), even though a later time of death would infer with Dr Bond's post-mortem report.

bolo, If you are right about the time needed for the large fire to do its work--you had originally said around a couple of hours--I don't think the earlier time frame works. Cox hears MJK singing after 1:00, say 1:10, and Prater doesn't see anyone enter as she stood outside the Court from 1:00-1:25. AND she sees no light and hears no noise in Kelly's room as she goes in at 1:30. Don't we have to think MJK is in bed at 1:30? Then there has to be all that stuff, killing, mutilations, fire build up, before Cox comes home at 3:00. And if you believe Hutch was there at all, then it's even tighter cuz he says all was dark before 3:00.

So I go with your above suggestion that it all transpires AFTER 3:00. And as far as Bonds goes, just stress Phillips who found the time of death to be between 5:00 and 6:00. We could compromise and use, "Oh, Murder" at 4:00.But still, two hours of fire would be quite risky, or one hour of smoke. And Prater goes out again, at 5:30. But she sees nothing. Whenever you put it, the fire must have been very important to the killer.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

[Prater]... sees no light in Kelly's room as she goes in at 1:30. Prater goes out again, at 5:30. But she sees nothing.

...she noticed no light, and the only chance she would have had of doing so was fleeting, as she ascended/descended the stairs behind Kelly's partition. Can't emphasise that too much.

If the only source of light had been the fire, then there's little chance that it was blazing sufficiently brightly to have been seen, through the chink in the partition, in those fleeting seconds when Prater may have been in a position to notice. That is, of course, assuming that Prater was paying much attention to her surroundings as she swayed wearily up the stairs to bed at 01:30; or as she staggered down the stairs, bleary-eyed and hellbent on booze, at 05:30.

[paul emmett]

Hi, Sam. "Noticed no light" is, of course, correct. But the context for my discussion was a large--I would say noticable--fire.

When Cox says "the light was out" at 3:00, she means candle, right?

[Doctor X]

Waves hand . . . starts throwing rocks

Was there any other known source of light in the room other than the fire grate? Remains of candles?

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

Hi, Sam. "Noticed no light" is, of course, correct. But the context for my discussion was a large--I would say noticable--fire.

The point is that these "traditional" fires don't burn with a constant, bright light - except when agitated by a poker/rake or given extra impetus by a blast of air from a bellows. The default is a soft, orange glow, which can be very dim - not bright enough to read a book by, for example, unless one were sitting comparatively close to the hearth, with the firelight shining directly onto the page.

Bear in mind that Kelly's partition was at right-angles to the fireplace, and that the portion of the partition visible from the stairwell to the upper floors was possibly only a couple of feet wide, some six to ten feet away from the fire. That doesn't leave much of a "window" for Prater to have observed much firelight at all in the handful of seconds it took her to walk up the stairs. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that she didn't notice any.

When Cox says "the light was out" at 3:00, she means candle, right?

Possibly - although it's worth remembering that Cox's room was down the far end of Miller's Court, so why she'd have chanced to look over her shoulder as she returned to her lodgings for the last time that night is anyone's guess.

Earlier, after she'd seen Blotchy arrive, Cox noted that there was a light in Kelly's window. This observation is more easily explicable, given that she was again to leave her room after warming her hands, and would have walked facing Kelly's window on her way out of Miller's Court.

It's worth noting in this context that, although she did indeed report seeing light in the window earlier, she couldn't see into the room as "the blinds were down". Any fainter light, as from the muted glow of a coal fire, might not have been so noticeable at 3AM - even if Cox walked backwards into Miller's Court and made a specific point of staring at Kelly's windows as she did so!