The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

D) Evidence for the last conclusion is the scream "Oh, murder!" observed by two different witnesses living close to the murder site.

Yet we have evidence that such a cry in that area during the night was "not uncommon". Have you factored that evidence into your thinking?

Do you have any data to suggest that someone in imminent fear of their life cries out the word "murder!" rather than "help!" or just screams?

[David Orsam]

Interpretation: Putting a hand inside the room and pulling the curtain aside was all it took to look into the room and see what was there.

Therefore, the murderer would not have lit the fire during the murder and mutilations. The risk of discovery was too high.

If the "risk of discovery" was an important factor in the murderer's mind, would we not, therefore, have to conclude that the same individual did not murder and, where applicable, mutilate, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes in the street due to the risk of discovery?

[Pierre]

Hi,

I have analysed the original inquest papers and have decided on an interpretation for the fire in the grate, as you have seen in my thread "Let there be light!"

I analysed the sources and postulated the hypothesis that the fire was lit by the killer to use the light for revealing the murder scene to a witness.

I am now adding a few data contained in the original sources to confirm that I can not reject this hypothesis:

1. Abberline´s statement at the inquest:

"I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire so large as to melt the spout off the kettle I have since gone through the ashes in the grate & found nothing of consequence except that articles of woman´s clothing had been burnt...".

Interpretation: The fire was lit by the killer, since the victim was poor and would not afford to burn clothes.

2. Bowyer´s statement at the inquest:

"...there was a broken window in the farthest window...I looked through the window and there was a curtain over the window I pulled the curtain aside and looked in...".

Interpretation: Putting a hand inside the room and pulling the curtain aside was all it took to look into the room and see what was there.

Therefore, the murderer would not have lit the fire during the murder and mutilations. The risk of discovery was too high.

Conclusions:

A) The murderer lit the fire since women´s clothes were burned. The victim could not afford to burn clothes.

B) The murderer did not light a fire before or during the murder and mutilations since the risk of discovery was too high: anyone could have put their hand through the window and pulled aside the curtain at any point in time.

C) The murderer therefore lit the fire to light up the room for the witness.

D) Evidence for the last conclusion is the scream "Oh, murder!" observed by two different witnesses living close to the murder site.

E) Given the facts I now establish above, we have very good evidence for a TOD before or about 04.00. At 04.30, Kelly was definitely dead.

I especially ask David Orsam and GUT here in the forum to abstain from trying to destroy this thread by putting belittling and ridiculing commentaries in it.

And I invite those who want to contribute to this thread to discuss the hypothesis and conclusions.

Kind regards, Pierre