The fire in the grate explained

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Chatty Cathy was a pull-string "talking" doll manufactured by the Mattel toy company from 1959 to 1965.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Pierre,
An interesting theory.

Are you saying that the killer murdered and mutilated the woman in absolute darkness? Or by say, candle light?

It was not the first time in 1888 that a victim was murdered and mutilated in a dark place.

Are you inferring that the killer had a good understanding of human anatomy?

I would not use those words. The man who murdered and mutilated Kelly did what he did because he could. That is an established fact.

Best regards.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;376650]Hi,
Lets give alternative solutions for certain events.

Hi Richards,

Nice to see your alternatives.

A] The cry of ''Oh Murder''.[ Kelly awakening from a nightmare, that she was being murdered. Mrs Prater inquest statement, and as Kit Watkins informant Lottie stated]

The alternative is based on low facticity, i.e. an hypothesis about a dream. There is no such data. The alternative I give is based on high facticity, i.e. two witness statements (each in two different sources) about a cry of "Oh, murder!". High facticity has higher validity than has low facticity and therefore is the best alternative.

Kit Watkins and Lottie - what are the sources?

B] Kelly lit the fire upon wakening.the spout of the kettle fell to bits because she was murdered whilst boiling water.

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead" (Phillips, original inquest source) indicated, among other things, according to Phillips that she died on the bed. Going to sleep, lying in bed, boiling water?

C] Kelly rolled up the bankets into a bed roll, which can be seen on the bed, which would imply she did this in the morning.

Could have been done at any time. Rolling up the blankets and then going to sleep?

D] Maurice Lewis account of Kelly returning with Milk. would give credence, to the boiling water factor.

No, there is no good evidence for that. The newspapers are not consistent. Lewis was talking of a "woman" and a "house" in many of these newspapers. The narrative is of very low validity!

E] The account apparently from Maxwell[ I read over 40 years ago] ''Her eyes looked queer, as if suffering from a cold'' would give backing to Hutchinson's account of hearing Kelly say ''Oh I have lost my handkerchief''.

Never heard of the "eyes looked queer" thing. Not in the original papers.

F] If all of this seems unlikely..The police believed the murder was committed in daylight.The Times November 12th, and that the killer burnt named items because they were bloodstained..Reason for fire??.

Regards Richard.

No such indication in the original sources. Or is there?

Regards, Pierre

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think he may well have lit the fire in order to see what he was doing.

For instance he cut her breasts off. That would have been possible in the dark, but this smacks to me of someone with some seriously strange curiosity and not an opportunity to let pass by doing it in the dark.

I think he struck gold here and wanted to see it in all it's bizarre glory.

Which may have implications for the light in the room as seen by Cox.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Chatty Cathy was a pull-string "talking" doll manufactured by the Mattel toy company from 1959 to 1965.

But what does that have to do with any of the matters under discussion in this thread?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Nothing at all, save for the fact that "MJK" appears to have been gossipy about her relationship with Barnett.

Other than that, I was merely explaining to you the identity of Chatty Cathy.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376739]

Hi John,

What is the source for this?



Regards, Pierre

are also something of a conundrum. Is this, for example, something Kelly would be likely to do whilst drunk-and a number of witnesses suggest she may have been inebriated, or had been to the pub-or would she be more likely to just throw her clothes on the floor in this situation?

I've answered this on the other thread.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi David,

Why summon Julia Venturney to the inquest?

According to her 9th November statement she saw and heard nothing during the night.

Regards,

Simon

Hello my friend. Ill take a shot at that one.....because Julia in her statement addressed the broken pane and suggested that Mary was seeing another "Joe", and I would assume that they interpreted the physical and circumstantial evidence the way most investigators do....that the murder victim knew the murderer. I think that they wanted to deflect possible break and entry speculation.

Hope all is well in LA.

[Michael W Richards]

As to the fire.....its probable that Marys room appeard "lit" to Mary Ann Cox because she was using more than the candle nub she had in the room. So, perhaps there was a fire that was re-stoked when she and Blotchy entered for a social visit. It was dark however just over an hour and a half later...so the fire was smoldering ash at 1:30am. There is no evidence in existence that suggests any light was seen again coming from that room shining into the alcove after 1:30am, and we have a witness who passed it after that time. Pierre is correct when he suggests that the killer would not have risked a fire due to the fact that it took very little to catch a glimpse of what was going on in the room and that his back was turned to the windows and door whenever he worked on the body.

Ergo...the melted solder on the spout is a red herring when it comes to the question of how large the fire was that night. It wasnt large. It didnt even completely burn up fabric. You want to know how the spout got melted, you might consider the tap in the alcove, the washtub under the bed, Maria giving Mary a few coins, and fresh laundry in the room. Why did Maria spend time with Mary that last afternoon?

[David Orsam]

I've answered this on the other thread.

I've also responded on the other thread.

[David Orsam]

Nothing at all, save for the fact that "MJK" appears to have been gossipy about her relationship with Barnett.

I'm confused because we were discussing the evidence of Julia Venturney but she didn't testify that MJK told her anything about her relationship with Barnett. So perhaps MJK was not that Chatty Cathy.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Julia Venturney, 9th November 1888—

"She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett)."

And at the inquest—

"She lived with Joe Barnett. She frequently got drunk. Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets. Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money. I think he was a costermonger. She said she was very fond of him." [punctuated for your convenience].

Chatty enough.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Julia Venturney, 9th November 1888—

"She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett)."

How is MJK there being "gossipy about her relationship with Barnett" when she is talking about another man named Joe?

And at the inquest—

"She lived with Joe Barnett. She frequently got drunk. Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets. Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money. I think he was a costermonger. She said she was very fond of him." [punctuated for your convenience].

In her written statement, Julia makes clear that her information about the MJK/Barnett relationship that you have cited came from Barnett himself, thus: "I knew the man who lived down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her going out on the streets..." (underlined for your convenience)

And again, in the final three sentences, how is MJK there being "gossipy about her relationship with Barnett" when she is talking about another man named Joe?

Chatty enough.

No, for the reasons stated above.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As to the fire.....its probable that Marys room appeard "lit" to Mary Ann Cox because she was using more than the candle nub she had in the room. So, perhaps there was a fire that was re-stoked when she and Blotchy entered for a social visit. It was dark however just over an hour and a half later...so the fire was smoldering ash at 1:30am. There is no evidence in existence that suggests any light was seen again coming from that room shining into the alcove after 1:30am, and we have a witness who passed it after that time. Pierre is correct when he suggests that the killer would not have risked a fire due to the fact that it took very little to catch a glimpse of what was going on in the room and that his back was turned to the windows and door whenever he worked on the body.

Ergo...the melted solder on the spout is a red herring when it comes to the question of how large the fire was that night. It wasnt large. It didnt even completely burn up fabric. You want to know how the spout got melted, you might consider the tap in the alcove, the washtub under the bed, Maria giving Mary a few coins, and fresh laundry in the room. Why did Maria spend time with Mary that last afternoon?

Dunno about you Mickey lad but I've never used a light coming from someone's room or home as a pretext to waltz in uninvited, and I've never heard of anyone else doing it. Where I come from you'd be on the wrong end of a spade wrapped 'round your nut were you to do so.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Jack was inviting danger by lighting a fire any more than the danger he was already in.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Fine.

Believe what you like.

Regards,

Simon