The fire in the grate...

[bolo]

Personally I never had a problem to explain the clothes in Mary's possession, Barnett gave them to her because he did not have any cash money and wanted to have her something she could pawn or sell. The question for me is wether the killer burnt them or they somehow ended up in the fireplace before Mary's death for god knows what reasons.

It's possible that some of the clothes Joe gave her were too worn out to be sold or worn so Mary decidet to burn them.

Maybe there were just a few pieces left lying in a heap next to the fireplace when the killer entered the room and lit the fire, either to burn evidence or get more light. He needed something to get the fire going so he took the crêpe bonnet (which makes a good tinder), threw it in the fireplace with some smoldering remains of the last fire, blew gently on the glow, et voilà.

About the warmth of the ashes on the morning after the murder, the ashes itself may have been quite cold already but the heat of the fire must have warmed the bricks of the fireplace, and it's not unreasonable to believe they were still warm when Abberline entered the room at 1:30pm. As a contemporary of the LVP, he surely could tell an unused fireplace from a recently used one.

[jerryd]

Sorry Double posted somehow.

[perrymason]

You do have a question worth asking in your post Kevin, and that is why was the ash still warm when Abberline feels it after 1:30pm? I think the more we delve into the likely articles of clothing that were burned, it will just be the hat and the skirt/jacket fabric found after sieving. I do not believe there was enough clothing there to build or maintain a "large" fire, based on what remains in the room.

And I dont believe a large bright fire would have ash still warm to the touch maybe 8 hours later.

The heat and brightness vary by the fuel used, as does the fires duration....and a low burning fire, using fossil fuels, could have stayed warm that long. And thats precisely the kind of fire they would have wanted to heat water for the wash Thursday.

Wood would have been expensive, coal cheap, dung free, and paper burns to cold ash in seconds.

However, would soaking fabric in kerosene prolong the flame a bit, enough to be useful as light? And don't ask why would someone be carrying kerosene around....cause a man is taken in shortly after Marys murder on suspicion, while carrying chloroform on his person. Something I always thought would answer the way he gets their "co-operation" without noise or struggles.

And on Marys candle, she had purchased it that week, and it was half burnt when investigators took over the room.

Cheers all.

[paul emmett]

Sorry Paul,

I'm not disputing that there was a large amount of clothing burnt , the remnants of which were quite visible in the fireplace. I just dont believe it would still be warm 10hrs later.

Either do I; that's why I don't think that the fire IS 10hrs earlier.

Sorry, Kevin. I think we are missing each other. I'm not disputing the amount or the visibility of the clothes either. All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the fire was a long time back, since then the ashes would not be warm, and if Abberline just found cold ashes, clothes remenants and a burnt off spout, he would have no call to even bring the fire up, since all this could have been left from a fire days back.

jerryd, I agree: which court makes a big difference. That's why we have to try to reconcile THE TIMES and the other report you quoted earlier. What do you think?

bolo, interesting point about the bricks. Would the warm bricks outlast the warm ashes? I'm just not sure.

Kevin, Thanks for the help.

[Sam Flynn]

However, in quite a few press articles it mentions clearly that Mary Ann Cox saw candlelight in Kelly's room as she and Blotchy first went in...

...just "light" actually, Mike - and only a small number of press reports mention it, and none of them state that Cox noticed it as she and Blotchy entered the room. In fact, when one looks at the most detailed report, that in the Daily Telegraph, it seems probable that Cox only noticed the light when she exited her room at midnight after warming her hands - "There was a light in the window but I saw nothing as the blinds were down". It seems likely that Kelly may have lit a candle, and/or revivified the fire with a good poke, just after she and Blotchy entered. Thus there was just enough light for Cox to notice it behind the "blinds" when she headed out of Miller's Court fifteen minutes later.

[perrymason]

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

[perrymason]

...just "light" actually, Mike - and only a small number of press reports mention it, and none of them state that Cox noticed it as she and Blotchy entered the room. In fact, when one looks at the most detailed report, that in the Daily Telegraph, it seems probable that Cox only noticed the light when she exited her room at midnight after warming her hands - "There was a light in the window but I saw nothing as the blinds were down". It seems likely that Kelly may have lit a candle, and/or revivified the fire with a good poke, just after she and Blotchy entered. Thus there was just enough light for Cox to notice it behind the "blinds" when she headed out of Miller's Court fifteen minutes later.

Hi Gareth,

Ive seen three accounts of the light seen so far trawling through press today, and youre right, it was just "light", and she didnt notice it until after Mary had entered.

However, the inference is clearly that she entered and lit the candle, not poked a low fire to spew some fireflies. She had nothing to burn that would offer much light that we know of, and when just entering, lighting the candle she just bought, likely on the large table, makes infinitely more sense than going to poke the dying fire first. That seems perfectly normal behavioral.

As does blowing the candle out when you dont need the light...fires back then didnt have "dimmers".

Cheers Sam.

[paul emmett]

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

Michael, I certianly agree about the clothes. But I had never heard Cox say that the candle(light) was out when she went back out after 1:00. How does that fit with the assertion that Cox still heard singing then?

I also agree that "the light" sounds like "the candle."

[Sam Flynn]

lighting the candle she just bought, likely on the large table, makes infinitely more sense than going to poke the dying fire first. That seems perfectly normal behavioral.

As does warming up the room on a cold, damp night when you've just brought company home.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jerry,

It would make a huge difference if Maria saw the coat in a room in Miller's court before the police knew about it.

But she didn't - that's the point - she said the police "produced" it and showed it to her.

(I refer the honourable gentleman to the "script" I dreamt up earlier )

[perrymason]

As does warming up the room on a cold, damp night when you've just brought company home.

Sure, but thats not what you suggested..you suggested it was the light source seen by Cox. And as we know, nothing that we are aware of in her room, other than her furniture, would burn very brightly if throw on ashes of a fire not tended for hours...which this fire was when first arriving home.

Best regards.

[Supe]

Michael,

And I dont believe a large bright fire would have ash still warm to the touch maybe 8 hours later.

With all due respect, what you believe isn't important to anyone but yourself. Depending on circumstances, ashes can well be warm after eight hours. That's why, even with modern fireplaces, you put the ashes from the previous night's fire in a metal container for dumping outdoors. And yes, if you don't daily clean the grate lots of luck starting a fire.

Don.

[bolo]

Bolo, when you consider that Mary Jane was about as rich as Catherine Eddowes was, and Catherine wore everything she owned out at night, ...clothes just lying about doesnt fit. These women were from the class below Poor. We know Mary Jane had dresses...we dont know where they were on Nov 8th, 1888. Could have been pawned long ago.

Best regards.

Yep, that's why Mary draped her clothes "neatly" folded over the back of the chair (or foot of the bed?) but she may have left the other clothes he got from Joe to pawn in a heap with the bonnet on top near the fireplace for later sale.

Obviously there were more pieces of clothing in that room at that particular night than just the ones she wore every day.

[CitizenX]

Hi,

Hi Jerry,But she didn't - that's the point - she said the police "produced" it and showed it to her.

(I refer the honourable gentleman to the "script" I dreamt up earlier )

This is from the inquest testimony recorded by the morning advertiser on the 13th. The advertiser seemed very thorough in their inquest coverage, sometimes mentioning titbits not seen elsewhere.

Maria Harvey, of New-court, Dorset-street, knew the deceased. On Monday and Tuesday she slept with the deceased. She saw the deceased on the Thursday night about seven o'clock. Joe came in while she was there. She left some clothes to be washed, including two shirts, petticoats belonging to a child, and a black overcoat.

The Coroner. - Two shirts belonging to the same man?

Witness. - No, sir. I saw the coat again on Friday, when it was shown me by some gentlemen.

Where did the "in a room in the court" quote come from?

Kevin

[Sam Flynn]

Sure, but thats not what you suggested..you suggested it was the light source seen by Cox.

It amounts to the same, Mike. A revitalised, brightly burning fire, as seen from behind some tatty curtains or a coat hanging over the window (there were no "blinds" in Mary's window - so Cox was incorrect there), or a candle. You takes your choice - either could have been the source of the "light in the window" that Cox reported.