|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:04 pm: |       |
Hi All
At the risk of above......is there any real or will there ever be any real evidence of when THE SPOUT OF THAT KETTLE WAS ACTUALLY MELTED??
I feel this could be relevant as I hate to say it but I feel that that spout could have been melted or whatever weeks maybe months before and that Mary just carried on in a sort of well it boils water so who cares sort of way.... A thought......cos come on we've all done this sort of thing!
Cheers
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
Suz..
I agree that the spout of the kettle could have been melted some weeks or months before. As you say, Mary might just have continued using it as a means to boil water. Maybe she didn't want to spend money on a replacement. I'm just wondering why Inspector Abberline thought that the fire in the grate had been so intense as to think that it had melted said kettle. (Taking this from Rumbelow.. "According to Inspector Abberline the heat had been so intense that it had burnt off the handle and spout of a tin kettle" - sorry, my only Ripper book until I can get my collection back from the ex)
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Hi Lyn
Having had a trawl through all the books to hand the A-Z tells me that arthur Douglas in his 1974 book Will the Real Jack the Rippr quoted 'How was it known that the damge occurred to the kettle on that particular night' Sounds a sensible proposition to me.. I agree with Lyn if that spout had been burnt off in God knows what sort of conflagration (probably a sort of ooops forgot it sort of situation) days or even weeks/months before. I'm sure Mary would have 'utilised' it as a 'thing' to boil water in! God it could have been a bucket but the kettle without a spout looked at fist glance a tad more decourous! Come on havent we all 'utilised' things ibn the past!!!!! spout or no spout!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Apologies for spellings there!!!!!! Sure you got the gist tho!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:53 pm: | |
Exactly, Suz..
I am still using a burnt up old saucepan because I don't want to spend ten bucks on a new one.. (oops, telling my secrets here!) But, heck, it still boils water!
I'm intrigued by what this Arthur Douglas said.. anything more on him?
Bestest,
Lyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
Hi
nothing more yet!!!!! Will have a look later
Anyone else got anything here??????
God !! She'd have gone up to Ringers.. I feel saying 'Who needs a cup of tea anyway!!!!!!'
......hence the horrors maybe!!!!!
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3471
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 3:21 am: | |
I suppose it depends what we think of Abberline. He could have leapt to the conclusion that the spout was melted on the night of the murder. But if we don't believe he'd have said this without a reason, then one possible explanation might be that she made Joe a cuppa on Thursday evening, and Joe later told Abberline that there was nothing wrong with the kettle then.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi Robert old chap!!!!
Yes good point...at the risk of sounding even dafter than usual is there a record of Abberline's interview with Joe....Gosh am sure there is.........just got in from work and checked this so brain isn't in gear yet!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3483
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Sadly we only have Joe's police statement and his inquest testimony - no record of his interview with Abberline.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 561
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the information upon which the police at the time based their decision that the damage occurred that night.
If it did happen that night, what might have indicated such a thing? Well, I suppose they could have found the spout below the kettle (the solder melted and it fell off), the handle (presumably wooden over mettle?) may have still had embers, or was smoking, and Joe may have indicated that the kettle was fine last time he saw it (when ever that was; not 100% proof, but it reduces the alternatives to low probability events).
In other words, there are a few things that could easily tell the police that the damage was recent. But, without something that records such information, all we can do is speculate on exactly what that information was (or that they made a mistake). As far as I know, nothing is recorded that indicates any of the above was in fact the case.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
My opinion of Abberline has always been that he was a bit of a 'lush'.
When I think - seriously - of his contribution to the case, I do believe I would rather have Laurel & Hardy with the kettle.
Yes, Abberline was a 'lush'. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
HI WOLF!!!!!!!!!
A lush eh!!!!!! how shocking! hope it wasnt a Lusk!!!!!OOOooooooooooooooooh my God perhaps this could all be revealed in the nursery thing 'Polly put the kettle on'!!!! Case solved!
Cheers (lush never!)
Suzi x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
OF course!!!!!!!!!!! it was Polly what done it...it wasnt her in Bucks row (but it was Mary of course !!) Pol went on to masquerade as fire engines ,street hawkers and bought the odd grape or two to keep the story straight of course!)
Hee hee sorry to be daft here! Just made myself laugh......not a bad thing I say!
Suzi |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Suz, babe..
You need to lay off the vod and vermouth for a minute and get back to what we were talking about!
(What were we talking about??)
Oh, yes - Abberline and his belief that the spout and handle had melted off the night of Kelly's murder..
Just what made him believe (or say) that??
Sobering up here...
Your best mate,
Lyn
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
HEY!
t
Thanks all but there was a tad of a serious thread here!!!! (Cheers Lyn!) well to be honest we'll never know on this point will we.... close it 'eh!
Cheers!
Suzi
 |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
OOOOOOOoops a 't' breaking out there.....never trust the 't''s I say!!!! Oh well sorry about this but is is a 'thing' that'll never be solved or sorted! meanwhile back on the boards.....................
Suzi x
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 70
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:12 am: | |
Hi all,
Just found this. It's a small piece, but I thought interesting none the less.
From Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper on pages 317 - 318:
"On Saturday morning the police returned eagerly to their investigation of the crime. Abberline was back at Miller's Court, exploring the ashes cold in the grate of Mary's room. It had been a large fire, so fierce that it had melted the spout of the kettle, but the only clues his search turned up were a few remnants of women's clothing. A "Times" report assures us that they were a piece of burnt velvet, presumed to be the remains of a jacket, and the charred rim and wirework of a woman's felt hat. Press versions of Abberline's inquest testimony speak of the remnants of a skirt and the brim of a hat. What had been the purpose of this blaze? To destroy something? Abberline did not think so. He discovered but one piece of candle in the room and decided that the Ripper had been compelled to burn clothes in order to provide the light by which he mutilated his victim."
A very interesting theory by Abberline, and it seems to me to be the only plausible reason of how remnants of clothing were found in the fire. Any thoughts?
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:44 am: | |
Adam, what are the options:
Those that strike me at once:
a) to provide light
b) to destroy something belonging to MJK
c) to destroy something belonging to the killer
d) to destroy something else
e) to heat water
f) to heat something else (though I am unaware of torture by branding etc in this case)
g)some other purpose known to the killer - ritual
h) accident - a small fire burns unchecked through neglect (unlikely I know but see j below)
i) warmth (there was once an idea the killer worked naked to avoid bloodstains)
j) a treat for Mary who was presumably cold most of the time and would not afford a fire.
The trick is surely to evaluate these options and rule out all we can. Some i know are mildly ridiculous, but I have tried to be thorough.
Have I missed any?
Phil |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 76
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
Hi Phil,
Nice options, I think you covered them all. Now let's go through and analyse each of them:
"a) to provide light"
An obvious choice, since as it has been said before, there was only 1 small piece of candle in the room. Definitely should be left on the list.
"b) to destroy something belonging to MJK
c) to destroy something belonging to the killer"
I think those 2 can be merged together. I think B is more likely than C, however, because if the killer took organs, aprons, etc with him in this case and before, then he surely would have taken any belongings of his with him. That also has a danger of something being left over and proved to belong to him. Too dangerous. But I think B is a distinct possibility, keep it on the list.
"d) to destroy something else"
Like what, for example?
"e) to heat water"
But for what purpose? Also, remember the spout was melted off. If the fire in the grate was large enough to melt the spout, why would he need to boil water as well? And why wasn't there any water found afterwards? I think we can scratch E.
"f) to heat something else (though I am unaware of torture by branding etc in this case)"
Yet there was a fire in the grate that was so powerful as to burn to complete scraps clothes, hats, etc. No reason to heat anything else if there was a fire just below. F can be scratched.
"g)some other purpose known to the killer - ritual"
A possibility. Leave G in.
"h) accident - a small fire burns unchecked through neglect (unlikely I know but see j below)"
Could be possible. It can't be dismissed. Though unlikely, leave H in.
"i) warmth (there was once an idea the killer worked naked to avoid bloodstains)"
But he committed 4 murders before that in the open with no clothes on? Sometimes in the wet? When does he get dressed again? Or does he prance through Whitechapel in the nude? Even he's more insane than we think, or that's not right. So, (I) can be scratched as well, IMO.
"j) a treat for Mary who was presumably cold most of the time and would not afford a fire."
A possible but weird possibility, yes. Leave J in for now.
OK, so we are left with A, B, maybe D, G, H, J.
Do you agree with my rulings in and rulings out? Can we narrow down the field anymore? I am currently thinking A and/or B are most likely.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Want to hear a really contentious but maybe not dismissable prospect?....The missing heart may have been put into the kettle and hence the destructiion of both!.Daft ok but..............
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3700
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
I find it strange that Abberline should wait till the Saturday morning to examine the fire. If the fire was still burning/smouldering when he entered the room, then one would think that to leave it unexamined for nearly a day would have risked evidence - e.g. a scrap of paper - being destroyed. So presumably the fire was well and truly out by the time Abberline entered the room. In which case, the kettle was probably cold, and his only reason for saying that the kettle spout had been melted on the night of the murder and not before, was that Barnett or one of Kelly's friends must have told him that the kettle had been all right on Nov 8th.
Somewhere I've seen a report of someone or other saying that they saw a sudden momentary light in Kelly's room around 3 or 4 AM, but I'm jiggered if I can find it now.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Robert
Am sure Mary didn't invite her chums round to discuss the kettle situation on that evening..hey! quite a funny drawing coming on there tho!
As to the light! hey I think I saw that too but where the devil was it? Am scuffling about here!determined to find it!!!
Suzi |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
I know we've discussed this before but how hot would a fire have to be to melt the spout vs could you get a fire that hot with clothing as fuel?
I lean toward the fire being for light and the clothing,which was presumably that left by Mary's friend, being the only fuel around. Remember she hadn't paid her rent in weeks so I don't suppose she had a handy pile of coal lying around.
I must say though,Phil, that the idea that the killer built a fire to keep her warm (when he knew that it would be making another contribution later in the evening) is very interesting not to say creepy. It would fit in with some speculation about how he managed the first cut to the neck.Getting her all nice and comfy in bed first.
No, scratch that. He would have had to come with some kind of starter already on him, and that would mean he'd know that he'd be killing inside a room with a fireplace. She certainly wouldn't have sat still for him burning Julia's clothes. This scenario is getting too Barnettish for me.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi,
I have been beamed up again.
Evidence points that the kelly murder possibly occured during daylight hours, therefore if that scenerio is possible can we explain the fact that kelly was in bed , her clothes folded , and the remains of a fierce fire.?
My opinion is that Kelly was enticed back into bed once returning to her room after the second Maxwells sighting, she folded her clothes as was her custom, the fire was lit by the killer to give the impression that she was killed during the night and he needed light, therfore the police would have found a mutalated corpse, and remains of a fire, with the victims clothes folded as if ready for bed, which her stay over friends would verify normal practise by the dead woman.
if this scenerio is correct then the murderer must have had a good reason for this, for eg.. a nightime alibi.
And of course who else but one of a handful of people would know it was kellys custom to fold her clothes that way and place them on the broken backed chair.
I hesitate to suggest Joseph Barnett.
But the clues are there....
regards Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3701
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hallo everyone
I'm afraid I do not know the answers to all those scientific questions - would a heart burn, would bloodstained clothing burn, what temperature would be required to unsolder a spout, etc. There is an M.R. James ghost story called Lost Hearts in which a man's heart is ripped out and tossed into a fire, if that's any help.
Suzi, I feel that if not Joe, then at least one of Mary's friends would have noticed if there was anything wrong with her kettle - maybe that's just down to my belief in the almost supernatural ability of women to spot such things.
One thing I found interesting is that there is an account - I think it's in the "Pall Mall Gazette" - of the jurymen being shown over Kelly's cramped little room with the aid of a farthing dip in a bottle. Now, if that's true, it would appear that a candle was sufficient illumination to see round the room (remember, although it was daytime the windows would doubtless still have been boarded up at this point, so the only difference from the night of 8th-9th, if we leave out the fire business, would have been the light which came in through the door, which can't have been very bright as the door faced west). Of course, maybe the murderer just didn't see the candle in the dark, and went over to the slightly glowing fire and stoked it up.
I believe there is another report of the viewing of the room in Alan Sharp's forthcoming book, and it will be interesting to see if it sheds any light (groan!).
Robert |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 80
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
Hi all,
Maria, you wrote:
"I know we've discussed this before but how hot would a fire have to be to melt the spout vs could you get a fire that hot with clothing as fuel?"
Extremely hot. Unless of course the spout had sustained some damage/previous melting before, in which case it may break off easier.
Do you know what kind of kettle it was? Just a tin one I am guessing? It probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference, I'm just curious.
If I have learnt anything from Science classes, one thing that has stuck in my mind is that a blue flame is always hotter than a red flame. Gas/Flammable liquids (Petrol, etc) will produce somewhat of a blue flame, where as an ordinary wood fire tend to be more red in colour. Therefore, there would have been more chance of the spout melting off if the fire had petrol or a flammable liquid thrown into it. For an ordinary wood fire, it would have taken quite a persistent flame and considerable heat over a long period of time to completely melt the spout off.
So there is a new theory for you to chew over - perhaps the Ripper put petrol/gas or a flammable liquid into the fire to spark it up?
Just a theory that came out of nowhere basically, but what do you all think?
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 218
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
Well, Adam I think that if the murderer put petrol etc on the flame that means:
-he brought it with him
-he knew he would need it
as I said above, this line of thought indicates a killer who knew that he was going to be lighting a fire and would need a "starter" for it. Very well thought out,premeditatied and IMHO not likely.
I am stating right out front that this just goes against my "gut feeling" that MJK was a victim of JTR, was randomly selected and was a stranger to him. Just how I see it and no, I don't have anything concrete to back it up. Sometimes we make choices on what to think based on what's most likely to us as individuals and that's mine.
Mags |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Hello,I hope you are all having an enjoyable Christmas.
Now this kettle.
It has been suggested that the possibility is that the spout could have been melted off at any time previous to November the 9th,which is fair comment.
It would of course have been the result of absent mindedness on the part of MJK,leaving the thing unattended to boil dry,eventually melting the solder joints.
But why even speculate that this happened on a separate occasion?
We are given several good possible reasons as to why the kettle was left unattended and therefore overheated at the time of the murder.
For instance,if Mary lit the fire and put the kettle on,the simple truth could be that she was unable make the tea because,by that time she was dead!
This raises the possibility that Mary may even have been about to share a freindly cuppa with somebody she knew!
The other possibility is that Jack himself lit the fire.If this were the case then I don't think it was to provide himself with light as Abberline suggested.I say this because I believe that the murder took place mid morning and Jack was in and out within 20 minutes at the most.But I'll save the latter for a different thread.
There are a two possible scenarios here:
1. He built the fire using clothes and a hat he found in the room.
2.He tried to smother the fire using the clothes and hat.
One theory I have is that Mary did in fact intend to go to the Lord Mayor's show that morning and I believe she actually had told some of the residents of the court.
She may even have inadvertently told her killer.
One horrible scenario is that the outing was pre-arranged.Mary's "Friend" was to call on her that morning and as it turned out,there was just enough time for a quick cuppa before they set off!
The point I am trying to make is that I tend to favour the idea that Jack attempted to smother rather than build the fire.Why? Well,Jack wanted to give the impression that nobody was home and that Mary had gone to the Lord Mayors show.
Regards,
Kane |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Suzi - the heart/kettle idea is new to me. Interesting though.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
As I recall the old theory, "Jack" got naked with MJK because he was indoors, had more time, was more likely to get blood on him, and thus protected his clothes. There is logic there. I don't know what thinking is on that as a theory nowadays though.
Where heating water is concerned, my thought was that the kettle boiled, and was then left on the fire, which SUBSEQUENTLY got too hot. This idea had/has associations with the mid-wife theory; or possibly that "Jack" shaved off a moustache after the killings and left in disquise as a woman - hence the Mrs Maxwell sighting.
Hope this clarifies,
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
So there is a new theory for you to chew over - perhaps the Ripper put petrol/gas or a flammable liquid into the fire to spark it up?
Adam,
1888 was well before the emergence of the motor car and the common availability of petrol/gasoline. House fires were usually coal/coke fuelled (or wood of course).
Did they have paraffin lamps or heaters in 1888?
Gas, by the way, in 1888 in the UK would have meant not petrol/gasoline but the literal gas (coal gas) used to fuel lamps and street lighting.
I don't know whether a "chandlers" like Mccarthy's would have sold paraffin.
Just some thoughts,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
So there is a new theory for you to chew over - perhaps the Ripper put petrol/gas or a flammable liquid into the fire to spark it up?
Adam,
1888 was well before the emergence of the motor car and the common availability of petrol/gasoline. House fires were usually coal/coke fuelled (or wood of course).
Did they have paraffin lamps or heaters in 1888?
Gas, by the way, in 1888 in the UK would have meant not petrol/gasoline but the literal gas (coal gas) used to fuel lamps and street lighting.
I don't know whether a "chandlers" like Mccarthy's would have sold paraffin.
Just some thoughts,
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3707
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi Phil
Apparently both paraffin and petroleum were available at and before 1888. The quality, and hence safety, of the oil seems to have varied.
I remember reading an agonisingly long list of Londoners who had been accidentally burnt to death. At the time I assumed that their clothes - long dresses etc - must have trailed in an unguarded domestic fireplace, or a street brazier. I've since realised that these infernal oil lamps were around.
I believe there were many house fires when the Asian population began settling in Britain. I think they used to have these oil heaters - sometimes dangerously tall ones - and probably weren't as wary of them as the English.
The following "Times" items are from 1861 and 1867.
Robert |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 154
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Robert,
Many thanks for these newspaper articles!
As always, your research has "come up trumps"..
Bestest,
Lyn |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3708
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Thanks Lyn. Of course, Mary didn't have a lamp, but the fuel for such seems to have been available. As a matter of fact, one of my suspects was said to clean his stained clothes with turpentine, but I don't want to wander off topic.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Robert
Mary might not have had a lamp, but perhaps Mary had a little lamb?
(From the Myth 1994)
''Take from this ram the fat, the fat tail, the fat around the inner parts, the covering of the liver, both kidneys with the fat on them, and the right thigh...'
(Exodus 29:22-33)
'From the fellowship offering he is to bring a sacrifice made to the Lord by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. Then Aaron's sons are to burn it on the altar on top of the burnt offering that is on the burning wood, as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.'
(Leviticus 3:3-5)'
I'm not convinced myself by this chapter of the Myth, but animal or human fats and oils do make a hell of a fire.
This has been well documented by forensic investigators.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3710
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Yes, AP, I'd momentarily forgotten the sacrifice thing. Could be.
But also, I can just see the loony going over to the fire, looking at himself in the firelight and trying to clean up the stains there and then.
After all, whatever would Aunt Clara say?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Hi all
Love the Mary had a little Lamp concept!!!!!
I dont know this for sure (as yet!) but would imagine that the coat etc would make a sulky sort of fire..especially in that damp room
AP....... What a delicious concept!the Leviticus has a sort of dark theory bubbling away there I think..the Levis are the men.......a Jeanius you!
He he!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Aunty Clara would hopefully make that lovely Dylan Thomas line...........Would you like something to read?
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 83
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:56 am: | |
Hi all,
Maria, you wrote:
"-he brought it with him
-he knew he would need it
as I said above, this line of thought indicates a killer who knew that he was going to be lighting a fire and would need a "starter" for it. Very well thought out,premeditatied and IMHO not likely."
Indeed, it would have to be a premeditated attack. I doubt very much Mary would have had petroleum of her own in her room, what would she need it for?
So, if the Ripper brought it with him, then he must have known that there was a fireplace, he would need to make use of it, and above all he was killing indoors.
If he did carry a black bag, which Ripper folklore has led many to believe (And I believe he did, or atleast a case of some sort) then he could easily have kept a container of flammable liquids/petroleum in the bag.
If, however, the Ripper did use petroleum on the fire, I for one would have thought there would be some trace of the odour left behind of it. Not a likely prospect, no, but a possible one.
Phil, you wrote:
"As I recall the old theory, "Jack" got naked with MJK because he was indoors, had more time, was more likely to get blood on him, and thus protected his clothes. There is logic there. I don't know what thinking is on that as a theory nowadays though."
Too dangerous, I think. A plausible idea, yes, but what if he accidentally left his hat, his hankerchief or his cufflinks behind? (That's of course if he wore any of that, but I would assume he would have had atleast 1 of the 3.) Then there would really be a trail after him!
Phil, your questions about paraffin oil and the availability of things like petroleum have been sufficiently answered below, I think. Well done on digging that up, Robert.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 383
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Adam,
Have you changed your mind a bit? That is, I recall just a couple days ago there was a three-way discussion among yourself, Monty and me in which Monty and I seemed to feel that had JtR left anything personal behind him it would have provided the police with a valuable clue. As I remember, you argued that in the absence of modern forensic science it would have not imperiled Jack and that, moreover, he likely had nothing like a hat, handkerchief or cuff-link to lose. Did Monty and I perhaps persuade you after the fact or is this a different matter?
Don. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 91
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Hi Donald,
You wrote:
"Have you changed your mind a bit? That is, I recall just a couple days ago there was a three-way discussion among yourself, Monty and me in which Monty and I seemed to feel that had JtR left anything personal behind him it would have provided the police with a valuable clue. As I remember, you argued that in the absence of modern forensic science it would have not imperiled Jack and that, moreover, he likely had nothing like a hat, handkerchief or cuff-link to lose. Did Monty and I perhaps persuade you after the fact or is this a different matter?"
I don't recall being so specific as to name those 3 garments as ones which I DIDNT believe he had, but yes, I do believe that he would be especially careful about not carrying anything with him that could potentially be dropped or left behind at or near the murder sites.
I am simply offering a new theory, and joining on part of a thought train. It isn't necessarily a theory I believe in, just trying to consider all of the possibilities.
I recall it once being suggested that the bloody apron off Eddowes was thrown or dropped in Goulston street, and it just so happened that it managed to land perfectly underneath a reasonably small amount of writing, that being the famous Goulston Street graffito. Whilst that wouldn't have possibly happened in a million years, what with it being such a distance from Mitre Square, being perfectly underneath the writing, etc, it is an interesting notion to say that it may have been 'accidentally dropped.'
Now that diverts from the thread a bit, I know, but my point is that while I believe the Ripper would have been careful enough not to leave any clues behind, it is not out of the realms of possibility. The rest are just my thoughts.
And if, for example, cufflinks had been found at Mary Kelly's murder site, then Hutchinson's statement would be believable. They would then be on the trail of the Ripper, because he was certainly the most detailed witness of them all.
Far too dangerous. He must be careful.
Hope that clarifies my views, and doesn't confuse anyone anymore.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
Very interesting and thanks very much indeed for the press information.
So maybe MJK's murderer was carrying a small container of some inflammatory liquid for the fire?
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
he likely had nothing like a hat, handkerchief or cuff-link to lose.
Donald, I was going to ask the same question. Such items rather assume a middle-class murderer. A working class/unemployed one would not have such problems.
On a wider issue, the getting naked theory is not mine. I was simply enlightening you, Adam, as you had previously misunderstood what I had said.
Phil |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 12:08 am: | |
Hi Phil,
You wrote:
"So maybe MJK's murderer was carrying a small container of some inflammatory liquid for the fire?"
I personally would say he was, yes. Of course, that's pure speculation. But if the spout of the kettle was melted off on the night she was killed, then it would have taken one huge, long-lasting blaze, and a hot one too, to melt it off. Petroleum/certain flammable liquids would not only ensure a roaring fire, but also would provide some of the extra hot blue flame that could have melted the spout off easier.
"Donald, I was going to ask the same question. Such items rather assume a middle-class murderer. A working class/unemployed one would not have such problems."
But most of the witnesses, or important ones anyway, stated that, for example, he was "Shabby genteel" and/or "Prosperous-looking."
A more well dressed man, looking not so shabby, would no doubt have made the women he led feel more comfortable going with him.
Also, a more middle-class/well dressed man would surely have not attracted as much suspicion as a shabbily dressed, dirty person seen around the area of the murders, if indeed he was at all.
Yes, I have copped it before for saying so, but I do believe fairly strongly in witness descriptions, especially those of Schwartz, Lawende, Marshall and Hutchinson - and Long to a degree.
"On a wider issue, the getting naked theory is not mine. I was simply enlightening you, Adam, as you had previously misunderstood what I had said."
Understood, Phil. Thanks for clearing that up.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1752
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:48 pm: | |
OK Guys
I guess the tiny bottle of something flammable (Hey Russo could be Brandy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )would explain the 'fire ' in Millers Ct..
Lets face it a damp old coat and the odd bonnet and heart wouldn't go up too well
BUT plus Sugar am imformed.....would go up well!!!!!!! now a couple of packets of sugar(not the motorway /airport jobs!) wouldnt have been noticed would it.....? Sweet bloke!
Seriously tho after rationing.... (Am imformed) if a fire is fading to perk it up you threw in a handful of sugar hey!!!! here we go then!!!! LINFORD we need you!!!!!!!!!
Hey Stan mixed with old Brandy would be go a treat like napalm eh! but no signs of that ....as yet.....HEY just had a thought re the spout on the kettle...maybe the FIRE got out of control here and someone.....! threw a coat (damp) onto it to smother it dunno........ just a thought ....back to the 'Spout' thread here I think
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:02 pm: | |
OK
..
Lets face it there was no way that Mary could afford serious firewood,kindling etc and so the fire on that damp old night was probably of the sulky variety!! Having had wood fires for many years myself I can verify the sulky quality of these!..I cannot imagine that Mary would have thrown her own garment onto this but maybe...............if someone had lit a fire that had maybe got a tad out of control a damp coat,bonnet may be a good way to quieten things down...the clothes left on the chair were probably dry and may have been just left there as 'evidence' and a possible chimney fire may have caused someone to notice maybe!!!
...I dunno just a practical thought here!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Good points you raised.
Mary Kelly obviously did not light the fire whilst alive as she would never have burnt assets such as boys shirts , petticoats, and a bonnet, these were pawnable items, and not fire material.
The only point i would make is apart from Mrs harveys clothes no others appeared to have burnt.
Although it is possible that Kellys famous Black velvet jacket was amongst the fuel, and this would as you mentioned been damp, as she was wearing it on the eve of her death[ Mrs Praters sighting] and most proberly on hutchinsons sighting when it was raining.
Incidently Mrs maxwells sighting mentions that she was wearing a maroon crossover[ found in kellys room].]
The problem is , if kelly was alive at 815am on the morning of the 9th wearing different clothing from the previous night, and the weather was steady drizzle, then that item would have been wet.
Hard to follow. but my point is did the killer light the fire with Harveys belongings in order to dry out kellys clothing that she wore that morning after maxwells sighting so it would appear that she was killed during the night.
as clothing that appeared to have been recently damp, would have given the police the impression that she had not been dead long, and i purpose that the killer did not wish to give them that opinion.
Richard. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 393
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 6:06 pm: | |
On the thread "The Fire in Mary's Room" (Victims>Kelly) there is a February 12, 2004, post from Roger Fleming that made some cogent points about this issue. That post would be well worth checking out.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls." |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 6:24 pm: | |
Ok Don thanks for that been there done that!!! lol
Richard
Caroline Maxwell said that she saw her in the clothes she was wearing the night before in 'The Horn of Plenty'with Danny as seen by
Maurice Lewis etc etc in the red crossover number I recall
Suzi |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
