Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

So what is your primary source from which you deduce that the killer was using the fire for the purpose of light?

I think you'll find this post was very much on-topic Pierre so I look forward to your answer.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no definitive evidence that there was any "large" fire in that fireplace at all on the night she is murdered. The speculation is made by investigators, and its partially based on a the kettle having its solder melted off. The assumption was that the "large" fire did that, when in fact repeated re-heating over a prolonged period of time would do the same thing. The ashes were warm when investigators entered the room Friday afternoon...and thats the only fact in the "large" fire propoganda.

As a reminder, the items found in the ashes were not completely burnt either, they were partially burnt...and that includes the highly flammable velvet piece

[GUT]

It's possible I suppose but do you have a primary source for that?

Used it for that purpose back when I was just a nipper.

[Abby Normal]

IMHO I've always felt that the most obvious chain of events was that Kelly and blotchy lit the fire, for warmth and maybe more light shortly after they arrived in her room. Then later in the night, after Mary was killed, her killer fired it up for more light so he could see his mutilations better, also using the cloths that were in the room to do so.

[Abby Normal]

Hi everyone,

Today I have analysed the sources from the police investigation 9 november, Dr Bonds letter from 10 November and the inquest sources from 12 November - all primary sources - to find a solution for the fire in the grate in 13 Miller´s Court on 9 November.

The questions I have been working with are

”Why did the murderer light a large fire in the grate?”

but firstly:

”Which possible time frames existed for the large fire in the grate?”.

Here are the results, following a timeline for the events based on the witness statements:

00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.
01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room
03.30-04.00 Sarah Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)
05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells, drinking there
08.00 Last possible TOD according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street

First analyse question: Which time periods during the night and morning 9 November can be classified as dark time periods and possible light periods?

00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.

Dark time period 1: 01.30-03.00:

01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room

Possible light time period 1:

03.30-04.00 Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)

Dark time period 2:

05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells (not stating a word about light or darkness)

Possible light time period 2:

06.30/07.00-08.00 Prater returned
08.00 Last possible TOD (time of death) according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street

Second analyse question: Is there any evidence in the time frame that supports Dr Bonds estimate?

Dr Bond states that the TOD should be set to 02.00, The time frame for rigor mortis is 6-12 hours after the murder. The last point in time when the murder could have been committed is therefore 08.00. TOD after 08.00 is not possible. Maxwells statment is therefore wrong.

The first dark time period, Dark time period 1, is 01.30-03.00. This period covers Dr Bonds estimate.

When is the first Possible light time period, making it possible for the killer to light a large fire in the grate?

It is not in the first dark time period 1 01.30-03.00. And yet, this is the time period in which Dr Bond places the TOD: at 02.00.

So the first Possible light time period, making it possible for the killer to light a large fire in the grate, is the Possible light time period 1: 03.30-04.00.

The hypothesis must therefore be, if Dr Bond was right, that this is the time period when the killer lit the large fire in the grate.

But this time period contains an event:

The cry of ”Oh, Murder!” was heard by two witnesses after Dark time period 1, in the Possible light time period 1: at 03.30-04.00.

The time line must therefore be, considering Dr Bond to be correct in his estimate, as follows:

02.00- 03.30: The murder and mutilations.

03.30: The lighting of the large fire in the grate

03.30-04.00: The scream(s) ”Oh, Murder!”


But what about the other Possible light time period 2?

06.30/07.00-08.00 Prater returned

Problems with the other light time period:

Problem 1) 07.07 Sunrise started.
Problem 2) Dr Bonds statement of TOD is 02.00 in the night.

The second time period must be excluded and the first Possible light time period must be hypothesized as being the correct time period for the large fire in the grate.

So why did the killer light a large fire in the grate? Did he do it to ”see better”, thereby taking the risk of being seen himself?

Let´s look at the time period again:

Considering Dr Bond to be correct in his estimate, the time line is as follows:

02.00- 03.30: The murder and mutilations.

03.30: The lighting of the large fire in the grate

03.30-04.00: The scream(s) ”Oh, Murder!”

So why did the killer first murder and mutilate his victim, and light the fire after the murder?

The answer is to be seen in the witness statements for the scream(s) ”Oh, Murder”!

The killer had lit a large fire to see better. But not for himself. He was used to working in dark places.

He had lit the large fire in the grate for his witness. So that she would see better what he had done.

Now, the next question must be: Who was the witness he wanted to enlighten?

Both Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater heard her.

Regards, Pierre

It was prater, because of course she heard herself.

And it was prater because, the killer wanted to get to her, but couldnt because she had barricaded her door, so the killer thought if I can't get Prater then having her find Mary would be the next best thing.

The police covered up that it was Prater because it ties in with the same reason they covered up the killer came through the wall in Mary's room.

Am I warm?

[Elamarna]

Hi everyone,

The killer had lit a large fire to see better. But not for himself. He was used to working in dark places. [/B]

He had lit the large fire in the grate for his witness. So that she would see better what he had done.

Now, the next question must be: Who was the witness he wanted to enlighten?

Both Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater heard her.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,



The hypothesise seems to be based on the following


1. A suggested possible time of death, base on the onset of Rigor Mortis which is presented as an established TOD.

However there has been much research done on this, including the below dissertation

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-todeath.html

The most interesting point in this, in this context is

"Jules Rosenthal managed to develop information involving a report from a Dr. Thomas Bond. According to Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly at 2:00 p.m. rigor mortis had started to set in, but became more pronounced during the examination. Quoting from his annexed report of the autopsy he says: “Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the process of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death…” "



2. With a time of death at 2am, obviously the cry of "oh Murder" could not have come from Kelly. Therefore there must be someone else who made such a cry.

However there is no conclusive proof that this cry was linked to the murder, it may have been; it may not.

Of course the firm 2am TOD, is not an indisputable scientific fact, there is a time range for determining TOD based on Rigor Mortis, which is acknowledged in the post itself:

"The time frame for rigor mortis is 6-12 hours after the murder. The last point in time when the murder could have been committed is therefore 08.00. TOD after 08.00 is not possible",


It should also be noted that this range is not a universal given, it can and does vary.



3. The large fire was lit to illuminated the murder scene. the killer was used to working in low light, so it must have been for someone else.

The idea of a large fire is based on the kettle spout having separated due to the melting of solder and the ashes still being warm on Friday afternoon.

However the spout could have come off as the result of continual use, that is being heated up many times.

As for the ashes, some remnants of the fire were found to not be completely burnt, this does not fit well with a large fire.

Lets us however accept there was a fire in Kelly's room that night.

It is certainly possible that Kelly lit the fire herself, there is no source which says she did not.



There is a claim for a "Dark Period" in the thread, from 1.30am to 3.00am, based on two statements which are made some 90 minutes apart. To suggest that it was dark for all that time is a great assumption is it not?

Is there a source to back this assumption?

In Conclusion

The thread involves making several very large assumptions and does not seem to contain enough evidence to allow the conclusion reached.

Pierre what evidence do you have there was a witness, whom the killer wanted to see what he had done to Kelly?

regards

[Bridewell]

Dr Bond's observations with regard to rigor mortis are at odds with most other sources. Most authorities (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not one of them) seem to be of the opinion that a more usual onset time is 2 to 3 hours.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/rigor-mortis-cause2.htm

A TOD of 3am would mean that 11 hours had elapsed when the body was examined. By that stage rigor would surely be more advanced than the doctor's comments suggest. If rigor was not far advanced, would that not suggest that 4 to 5 hours had elapsed since death? (If so, we'd be looking at 9am - 10am, in which case Mrs Maxwell's sighting would not necessarily have to be ruled out).

Another effect of lighting the fire would be that the temperature of the room would be increased and, as a consequence, deterioration (incl, rigor) would be more rapid.

A side question:- If McCarthy was so anxious to collect the rent arrears, why did he wait as long as he did? Why not send Indian Harry round at 9am?

[Elamarna]

Dr Bond's observations with regard to rigor mortis are at odds with most other sources. Most authorities (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not one of them) seem to be of the opinion that a more usual onset time is 2 to 3 hours.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/dise...tis-cause2.htm

Very useful post Bridewell,


yes the fire may have speeded things up, but the striping of muscles from legs etc, and the loss of blood could equally have slowed onset down a little

In the dissertation I quoted

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-todeath.html

3-4 hours was suggested as onset period, which is in the same rough area as your2-3 hours.

The problem with setting a TOD based on the degree of Rigor is of course, it is hard to tell just how far advanced Rigor was at at 2pm.

However all the ABOVE suggested that TOD was not at 2am

regards

steve

[Robert]

When Abberline says, "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" we have to make a judgement : was this just surmise on Abberline's part, or had he spoken to Barnett or Harvey and ascertained that the kettle was undamaged the day before the murder?

[Elamarna]

When Abberline says, "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" we have to make a judgement : was this just surmise on Abberline's part, or had he spoken to Barnett or Harvey and ascertained that the kettle was undamaged the day before the murder?

Very true Robert, what is your view?

steve

[packers stem]

The only real point of interest about the fire for me is the clothes.
Abberline stated that it appeared a large amount of womens clothes had been burnt.
Whose clothes were these? As Mary's were apparently folded unless I've mixed up somewhere
And where were the men's clothes that were left by Maria Harvey? ..... And the pawn ticket lol

the 'oh murder' came from the courtyard. It's pretty clear from Prater that it came from outside and others said 'the direction of the room'
Clearly a deliberate shout, loud enough for people to hear,not too much to make anyone come running

[Elamarna]

The only real point of interest about the fire for me is the clothes.
Abberline stated that it appeared a large amount of womens clothes had been burnt.
Whose clothes were these? As Mary's were apparently folded unless I've mixed up somewhere
And where were the men's clothes that were left by Maria Harvey? ..... And the pawn ticket lol

the 'oh murder' came from the courtyard. It's pretty clear from Prater that it came from outside and others said 'the direction of the room'
Clearly a deliberate shout, loud enough for people to hear,not too much to make anyone come running

Hi Packers

Maybe he is about to back you, maybe the witness is MJK herself.

however to suggest 2am as a firm TOD just seems wrong, not backed by the science from what I can see.

yes what exactly had been burnt and who did it belong to?
Sure I know what you will suggest, even if you do not have a name.

I agree about where the call came from.
On the purpose of it, or if it was linked to the murder I have no idea.

Steve

[Mayerling]

I appreciate that Inspector Abberline said of the fire that "I presume [it] was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room".

But this was a presumption of the inspector no doubt based on a belief that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness.

What amazes me about Pierre's post is that he doesn't even consider the fact that the primary purpose of a fire is: heat.

A secondary purpose of a fire can be: to burn stuff.

Another secondary purpose is, of course, light but how is it possible to discuss the purpose of the fire without at least mentioning the above?

Hi David,

Gee, it occurs to me. This was an occurrence on November 8/9, 1888, a date long before what we call "global warming". Back then, Novembers were pretty cold months. Especially in tenements. Wouldn't it have made sense to have a fire for the purpose of heat???

I think so.

Jeff

[c.d.]

"A side question:- If McCarthy was so anxious to collect the rent arrears, why did he wait as long as he did? Why not send Indian Harry round at 9am?"

Hello Bridewell,

There could be numerous reasons why he did not that we would have no way of knowing. Possibly Indian Harry was not available earlier. Before McCarthy's actions become suspicious we would have to have evidence that he previously had a firm set method including date and time for collecting rents and that this instance was a distinct deviation from it. Even then there could be a simple explanation for his doing so. Not really much there to cast suspicion on him.

c.d.

[Damaso Marte]

So Pierre is essentially suggesting that the killer mutilated somebody other than MJK, lit a fire so that the mutilated corpse would be more visible, and then MJK walked into her own apartment at 3:00 AM, saw the murder, screamed "oh, murder!', and then disappeared for the rest of her life, except for a trip to the bar later that morning.

Of course, his own data suggests other possibilities.