Why didn't anyone notice the bright light of the fire in Mary's room?

[Abby Normal]

Agreed on both counts. There has never been any firm indication of a blazing fire in the room and a smoldering fire can do just as much damage as we have had described.
The only caveat I have towards a smoldering fire is the supply of air.

Apparently the chimney functioned as required because the room was not filled with smoke. So there is an exit for the air supply.
There were two gaping holes in the windows so outside air was able to enter uncontrolled.
Both these conditions provide an adequate air flow for the fire, so I have to ask myself, how could anyone prevent a smoldering fire from flaring up given a more than adequate supply of continuous air?
A fire generally smolders when the air supply is restricted, but it wasn't, there was both an incoming supply & and outgoing chimney.
A heavy coat hanging as a curtain will not restrict incoming air, in fact it should create a suitable draft.



Yes. Which also supports the argument that the fire was lit after Blotchy, perhaps consistent with Kelly bringing someone else back home after Blotchy.



We don't know how close the spout was to the fire. The spout may have been soldered on to the kettle, so the spout just came apart because the solder melted, not that the spout actually melted away.



You had some good thoughts.
Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

Yes. Which also supports the argument that the fire was lit after Blotchy, perhaps consistent with Kelly bringing someone else back home after Blotchy

Or consistant that the fire was lit or stoked up by Blotchy after he killed her. None of the witnesses saw Blotchy leave.

[Bridewell]

Like It

Hi.
In my view the most likely scenarios are as follows.
A] That Mary lit the fire when returning to her room with the gent, Hutchinson saw, in order to make him feel comfy , and the killer fuelled the fire with articles of clothing whilst he carried out his fantasies .
B] The fire was lit by Mary around 8am upon awakening , and was killed not long after boiling water for tea, possibly around 9am, the killer burning clothing to give the police the idea that he needed light, having an alibi for a night slaying.
What ever scenario we choose, it is almost certain that Kelly lit the fire ,as it appears her boots were close to the grate, which gives the obvious clue, that her intention was to dry wet foot-ware , so obviously placed them there when the fire was alight, and being alive.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

There is much merit in this, I think, especially the idea that the killer wanted to give the impression of a night-time slaying, during a period for which he had an alibi. Then again, I place more faith in the witnesses, Maurice Lewis & Caroline Maxwell than I in a cry of "Murder" in a court on Dorset Street, as an indicator of the time of the murder.

Regards, Bridewell.

[SarahLee]

I do wonder if what is being portrayed in the illustration of Mary Kelly's room, is in fact a small black-lead open range...bearing in mind this room had a previous function (before the house was subdivided) could it originally have been a back kitchen or scullery...for the benefit of youngsters google cast iron range!

The picture certainly reminds me of an arrangement I've seen a couple of times wherein there is a small enclosed cast iron box each side of a raised open fireplace...this enables bread to be baked or meals to be slowly heated...not to be confused with a closed black lead range or "portable" black lead range (which as the owner of a working example, I can assure you it's certainly not!)...

Just a thought...

Dave

Hi Dave,
That fits along the lines of what I was imagining with it being a downstairs room. However, the one thing that dissuades me is that in the sketch Chris provided the fireplace seems to be very much centralised in its position on the wall.
If MJK's room was part of what was once a larger space (possibly a kitchen) that had been partitioned off and if this was a pre-existing fireplace, I would have expected it to have ended up off-centre on the wall once the partitioning was in place. Seems hard to believe that a new fireplace was installed when the rooms were divided up, so that leads me to think that whatever the room's original function was it had always been a small room . . . too small for a kitchen fitted out with that sort of range perhaps???

p.s. I like to believe that I'm still a youngster. My memories of cast iron ranges come from my grandmother's house . . . honestly !!!

[SarahLee]

The only caveat I have towards a smoldering fire is the supply of air.

Apparently the chimney functioned as required because the room was not filled with smoke. So there is an exit for the air supply.
There were two gaping holes in the windows so outside air was able to enter uncontrolled.
Both these conditions provide an adequate air flow for the fire, so I have to ask myself, how could anyone prevent a smoldering fire from flaring up given a more than adequate supply of continuous air?
A fire generally smolders when the air supply is restricted, but it wasn't, there was both an incoming supply & and outgoing chimney.
A heavy coat hanging as a curtain will not restrict incoming air, in fact it should create a suitable draft.

That's a fair point and an interesting question.
Would clothing thrown onto a smouldering fire be sufficient to damp it down and prevent a flare up, but also allow adequate air through to keep it smouldering . . . maintaining enough heat to eventually render the clothing to ash? I honestly don't know the answer.

Yes. Which also supports the argument that the fire was lit after Blotchy, perhaps consistent with Kelly bringing someone else back home after Blotchy.

I feel myself being drawn towards someone else after Blotchy . . . but my ideas aren't really formed enough to want to share them yet.

We don't know how close the spout was to the fire. The spout may have been soldered on to the kettle, so the spout just came apart because the solder melted, not that the spout actually melted away.

Sorry Jon - that was me expressing myself badly.
My thoughts were indeed around the solder melting sufficiently for the spout to drop off, rather than the spout literally melting.
Indeed that's exactly what happened to me with my boiled saucepan experience except the handle was originally riveted in place rather than soldered.

You had some good thoughts.
Regards, Jon S.

Thank you!
As a newcomer just trying to piece this together it's good to know that I'm not spouting (excuse the pun!) complete nonsense.

[Cogidubnus]

if only!

Hi Sarah

I take on board what you say about the fireplace being relatively central...well observed... but these were very old houses possibly hacked about many times in their long lives. What if the room having once been a scullery, was knocked through into the adjoining room (which may once have been the kitchen) at some stage, then at a later date repartitioned off for separate letting?

My closed ("portable") black lead range is far larger than the affair I envisage in MJKs room...yet it sits comfortably in the cavity, (originally designed for it's brother), in our dining room...formerly the kitchen of the house, measuring just 10' x 12' approx...same size as Mary's room...

Smaller open ranges or hob grates were never designed to be the main cookers...more like a small facility for servants quarters providing a fairly minimal cooking/reheating ability and somewhere to perch a kettle...it's just that the picture provided by Chris, does look a bit like one with a frustrating hint of the cast-iron box or hob either side...

If only we had a clearer picture...(lot's of "if onlies" in this game!)

Al the best

Dave

[SarahLee]

If only . . . possibly . . . maybe . . . yes, there are plenty of all of those floating around in my mind!

I can definitely see the resemblance between the sketch and what you posted.
Is there a source anywhere for the history of that house? How it originally started out, when it was sub-divided and who previous owners / tenants may have been?

I'd be really interested in looking into it, but just wouldn't know where to start.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Sarah

Starting at post 182 on this thread there's an interesting discussion on the possible layout....

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=612&page=19

There are probably others - seem to recall seing another one at least - but can't remember where just now...

All the best

Dave

[Beowulf]

I've just found the arrangement I mentioned described as a Cast Iron Hob Grate...a rather more fancy example is shown at:-

http://www.britainsheritage.co.uk/an...hob-grates.htm

I envisaged a rather simpler example, but this gives the flavour...

Dave

This is pretty interesting. Never heard of antique hob grates. Love stuff like this.

[curious]

Then again, I place more faith in the witnesses, Maurice Lewis & Caroline Maxwell than I in a cry of "Murder" in a court on Dorset Street, as an indicator of the time of the murder.

Regards, Bridewell.

Yea! I thought I was the only person here who feels this way.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"I thought I was the only person here who feels this way."

Then I trust you have not met Richard Nunweek as yet ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Where did you come from Fisherman, I was just about to introduce myself...
My point is simple, I believe the cry heard [ coincidental or not] was not a cry of being physically attacked , but mentally.
It was as Mrs Prater describes as ''awakening from a nightmare'', which is precisely what happened, the term ''Oh murder'' was the reaction of a person awakening suddenly from a dream, that they were being attacked.the very same dream, that Lottie [a resident of the court,], informed Kit Watkins of in 1891.
''She informed me [ Kelly] that she had experienced a bad dream that she was being murdered''.
I belief that this was that dream reoccurring , after all she was aware that JTR, was about in the area, hence the remark to Mrs McCarthy the previous day..''He is a concern .isn't he, added to the fact that she had no sleepovers that night, it preyed on her mind.
It was this that she meant when she informed Mrs Maxwell of the 'Horrors of drink''.
My take is that she met her death either by the man seen by Maxwell talking to Mary outside Ringers at 845 am, or by someone, that was in her room when she returned.
The scene in the room is one of a morning murder, this was also believed initially by the police, and the clues are abundant.
Its oh so easy to dismiss witnesses that were present at that time, because they don't fit into a nice easy solution.
Regards Richard.

[curious]

Curious:

"I thought I was the only person here who feels this way."

Then I trust you have not met Richard Nunweek as yet ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,

Yes, actually, -- well no. Haven't met him, but have read some of his interesting posts. Plus, I know that a few people probably do think this way, but I believe we are a small minority. I exaggerated a tad.

Richard has some thoughts I find very interesting . . . but can't be PM'd for questions, so I have to just catch what he has to say here on the boards.

I don't want to derail this thread, but can you actually put Cross-Lechmere in the frame for Kelly's murder? and how explain the fire?

This is the one murder C-L feels least right for me, mainly because of the suggested use of a hachet. I just don't think he's right for here.

[Bridewell]

My take is that she met her death either by the man seen by Maxwell talking to Mary outside Ringers at 845 am, or by someone, that was in her room when she returned.
The scene in the room is one of a morning murder, this was also believed initially by the police, and the clues are abundant.
Its oh so easy to dismiss witnesses that were present at that time, because they don't fit into a nice easy solution.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Dr Bond's assessment of rigor mortis is, I think, misleading:

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."

It depends what he means by "sets in". If, as I think the context suggests, he is talking of the length of time before rigor mortis commences, his view runs contrary to the modern understanding which holds that Rigor mortis commences after about three hours. The examination started around 2pm and the body was found at 10.45am. If the two hour estimate for causing the injuries is accepted, the latest possible time for the murder would be around 8.45am but, as nobody (mercifully) has ever sought to duplicate this atrocity against the clock, it could have been quite a bit later.

A daytime killing, as others have observed, would make any light given off by the fire a non-issue, I guess.

Regards, Bridewell.

[curious]

Hi Richard,

Dr Bond's assessment of rigor mortis is, I think, misleading:

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."

It depends what he means by "sets in". If, as I think the context suggests, he is talking of the length of time before rigor mortis commences, his view runs contrary to the modern understanding which holds that Rigor mortis commences after about three hours. The examination started around 2pm and the body was found at 10.45am. If the two hour estimate for causing the injuries is accepted, the latest possible time for the murder would be around 8.45am but, as nobody (mercifully) has ever sought to duplicate this atrocity against the clock, it could have been later still.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi, Bridewell,
I had found the same research about the timing. I wonder if rigor mortis begins when the body stops being active, and since her limbs were being moved and "worked on" if this would not be a reasonable explanation for a somewhat later onset?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bridewell,
I am in full agreement with your take on Rigor Mortis.I would suggest that it would have been impossible to pinpoint T.O.D via body examination[ what was left], and much of the opinion was based on witness reports especially the cry.
The point has always been, a sworn account by a respectable woman[ Maxwell] having seen the victim alive around 830am, and I feel rather then except a dodgy verdict by a nineteenth century doctor/doctors, we should have more faith in a very detailed account, not to mention clothing description, taken in the form of a statement, on the day of the event, and sworn under oath at the inquest, which was taken after a weekend , which was ample time to realise a mistake.
The police believed the murder was committed during daylight, which was in contrast to there own police doctors, and they believed Caroline Maxwell to such an extent, they placed her under oath at the inquest, and never considered her a time waster.
Look at the bedding, the placing of her boots, the police opinion that both Kelly's Velvet jacket, and Harvey's bonnet , were burnt because of bloodstains, and its not hard to come, to my long held opinion, that MJK was killed much later then modern day reckoning suggests.
Regards Richard.