|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
BAPearce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 6:41 pm: |       |
It occured to me some time ago that the purpose of the fire could have been to "cook" the missing heart so he could eat it there in front of her.Gruesom but in keeping with the behaviour of serial killers |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Pearce,
That is so gruesome ,even my imagintion finds that hard to accept, That is all I can say on that.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi BA and Richard,
The cooking and eating of the heart is also in line with what was said in the Lusk letter: "...tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise...."
All the best,
Frank |
maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 6:34 pm: | |
Well that's what was implied in "From Hell" but I don't believe it. I've read that in order to do all the savagery upon Kelly, he would've had to work for about 2 - 3 hours, so perhaps he'd want to scarper quickly afterwards heart and all! |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:41 pm: | |
I don't recall that being implied in From Hell, the movie, or the comic book. I do, however think it's plausible that he was cooking the heart to eat it. Cannibalism of victims is extremely common with serial killers. |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi chaps!
Can't help but think Frank that the very 'nise' piece of offal was Kate's kidney not M.J.K.'s heart! Re the fire have we all lost track of the idea that it was used purely to speed up or slow down good old rigor-mortis ?After a quick conversation there I would suggest slowing it down..good old Mrs Maxwell!....I really don't believe that she would have forgotten the date of the plate returning!! but there again that could just be me..Walking the slippery streets of Whitechapel carrying an assemblage of crockery without mishap would certainly stick in my mind! Ah well... whatd'ya think??
love
suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:19 pm: | |
Hi,
Kellys boots were reported to have been in front of the fireplace, therefore opinion would be that the fire was lit at the time she took her boots off. there was no reports that a fire was seen raging in her room during the early hours of the morning, therefore as it was at least raining around 8am on the morning of the 9th nov, according to catherine pickett, who tried to borrow kellys shawl at 8am, I would assume that the fire was lit by Kelly , or somebody in that room, after that period, and she simply undressed to return to bed , and Put her wet boots in the obvious place to dry
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Makes sense to me..so if M.J.K.returned to her room after being seen by Mrs Maxwell (horrors of drink etc.) while it was still raining (?) wet,cold and hungover she took to her bed,leaving her boots to dry in front of a fire (lit earlier in the morning ?) only to fall asleep and into posterity...or not! That would allow for around an hour and a quarter give or take for chummy to enter mary's room ,strike and leave prior to Bowyer's discovery.
Cheers
Suzi |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
We might be able to nail down the late or early TOD because of the evidence of the fire. In order for Mary to die after sunrise she has to light the fire, put the teakettle on, remove her boots and put them in front of the blaze and then be murdered and cut up. After she is dead there has to be time for the water to boil down, the solder on the spout to melt, and the spout to fall off. All this has to happen before Bowyer shows up. We can debate how long the mutilations took, how digested the potatoes and fish were, and how far advanced rigor mortis was till the cows come home. We may be able by application of simple science to figure out the minimum and maximum periods of time necessary to boil down the water, and melt off the spout. What is the earliest time Mary could have been killed according to the post sunrise scenario? The latest time? |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
Diana Hi..
Who's to say that the fire hadn't been lit earlier in the morning prior to mary toddling up to Ringers and being seen by Mrs M,also how do we know that the ubiquitous spout hadn't melted off at a much earlier date and is there any evidence that the water in the kettle was even warm.I reason that Mary could easily still have been shambling about at 9.00 a.m. ish and so that still gives us a window of about an hour and a bit
Cheers
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 6:13 am: | |
Hi
I'm afraid once again we seem to be wandering into fantasy land with this fire.
There is absolutely nothing to show when the spout was melted off the kettle - it could have happened the previous month.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the 'blazing fire theory' and plenty to show otherwise. A blazing fire would consume fuel at a far greater rate than a fire that smoulders. Therfore someone would have to be constantly feeding such a fire. Two points Who and with what? We know the ashes were still warm when the police finally broke into the room. Remains in the grate show that the fuel used was articles of clothing. Clothing smoulders it doesn't blaze.
MJK did not have any fuel to construct a blazing fire, unless you're suggesting JTR thoughtfully brought his own sack of coal.
Here is what I think happened.
MJK is out in the rain and meets 'Stranger Man' as witnessed by, but incorrectly described by Hutchinson. She takes him back to her crib. It is damp and cold, she throws a few scraps of clothing and other rubbish in the grate and lights it. It doesn't burst into flame - it smoulders. She takes off her wet boots and puts them in front of the meagre fire. She gets into bed with SM, he leaves, JTR enters kills her, mutilates her and leaves. All this time the fire is still smouldering, finally burning out about midday or one o'clock the next afternoon, but leaving warm ashes.
Now this fits in with the facts, why do we ignore this reasonable explanation and try to construct fancible explanations. Aren't there enough mysteries about this case without trying to make more?
Have a good Christmas and a ghoulish New Year!
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1640
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
Hi Bob
I too tend to go for the scenario where Jack enters Kelly's room in the night, after Hutchinson's man leaves. But there's still Shannon's blood argument hovering in the background.
Re the kettle, of course the spout could have melted off some time before. It just bothers me that Abberline appeared to believe that it had happened at the time. He'd had all weekend to question Barnett. Wouldn't Joe have known if the spout had melted previously?
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 8:09 am: | |
I tend to prefer the 4 AM time of death, but I don't want to be closed minded. I agree with Robert that although it is possible that the destruction of the kettle was old, the fact is that Abberline seems to connect it to the previous night's fire. Kelly appears to have been a neat person (folded clothes). Would she have left the spout lying in the grate (or wherever it was found)? Wouldn't Abberline have found it tucked in a cupboard or on a shelf awaiting the time when she could pay to have it resoldered? It has been my experience that poor people who have very few posessions tend to be very protective of the few things they have. Would she have gone out to the pub that morning and left the kettle on the fire to boil dry? If not then maybe some of us who are more erudite about melting points and so forth could really shed light on the viability of Mrs. Maxwell's testimony.
Another thought -- she left her boots by the fire. This shows that she was alive when the fire was lit and her boots were wet. When did the rain stop and how long did the puddles remain?
(Message edited by Diana on December 24, 2003) |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 85
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
Yesterday you wrote: “Can't help but think Frank that the very 'nise' piece of offal was Kate's kidney not M.J.K.'s heart!”
That’s clearly beyond discussion that and therefore obviously not what I meant. I said the cooking and eating of the heart is in line with what was suggested in the Lusk letter: cannibalism. Like Kris said: “Cannibalism of victims is extremely common with serial killers.”
You also wrote: “Re the fire have we all lost track of the idea that it was used purely to speed up or slow down good old rigor-mortis?”
Although this is good thinking and might be what actually happened, there’s one ‘however’, I think. In those days many of the modern investigative tools like forensics, DNA analysis and even fingerprinting weren’t at hand yet and the determination of the time of death by rigor mortis was not very precise (and it still isn’t).
So, if a killer wasn’t caught in the act, the chance of him or her finally being ‘buckled’ was slim.
If the Ripper was an organized killer he might have thought of killing indoors, which of course he did in this case, and he would have seen to it that he wasn’t seen together with his victim very shortly before a murder, he would have seen to it that he didn’t get all covered in blood, he would have seen to it that he wasn’t seen fleeing the crime scene and finally he would have seen to it that he wasn’t noticed between fleeing the crime scene and entering his ‘hideout’. And in between murders he had to keep a low profile.
In my view the Ripper didn’t need to think any further than this, these were the only ‘rules’ he needed to stick to in order not to get caught and therefore I doubt if the Ripper would have thought of speeding up or slowing down the rigor mortis.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 9:11 am: | |
Hi Diana
It's difficult to be sure what frame of mind Kelly was in, and how drunk she was. But if we assume for a moment that she was acting rationally, then I imagine that the boots being before the fire might indicate that the fire was lit, and she wanted to dry them out. Otherwise, the most logical place for her boots would have been beside her bed - this would save her from having to walk barefoot across a filthy floor when she got up.
So if we tentatively say that the boots were placed before a burning, or smouldering, fire, then the next question would be, why weren't her clothes too placed there, as they were damp? If they were indeed on the chair at the end of the bed, might this indicate that she actually intended going to sleep as soon as Hutchinson's man left, and didn't place her clothes to dry out in front of the fire for fear that they would scorch or burn while she was sleeping?
Of course, if Kelly was quite drunk, then who knows?
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 10:04 am: | |
The boots could have been wet because of rain or post rain puddles. Your point about drying out the boots and not the clothes makes me tend to think of the latter. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
The weather page of the Casebook website says that it rained the night of the 8th and was wet till 11:00 AM the 9th and then overcast. Not much help there. Her boots might have gotten wetter than her clothes because there were puddles. Does anybody know whether the boots were dry by the time Abberline got in there? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 317
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Seems to me a critical question in the line of thought is whether there was any other source of heat in the room/building. It seems unlikely there would be sufficient firewood available in London at reasonable cost for Mary to heat her dwelling exclusively in this manner.
This is important because if there was radiant heat, for example, she could have dried her boots or clothing on a radiator.
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Bob,
Didn't I say in my post up the page somewhere that that spout could have been melted off months before!! Who actually said that there was any water in that kettle .. let alone the fact that it could have even been warm!! The girl came home..tired..hungover and, wet..took her boots and clothes off (definately naked in the photo!) and went to bed leaving boots steaming gently in front of a weak but acceptable(no coals!) fire..
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi.
I would have thought that the spout melted on the evening or morning of her death, surely the police would have asked Barnett, or her frequent visitors had they noticed, that the kettle had disintigrated .
The fact is that it was believed, that the spout had melted on the night / morning of her death, as a result of a substancial fire in the grate.
The obvious question to raise, is when was this fire lit and by who?.
Two possibilities come to mind .
a] Kelly lit the fire to make comftable the Astracan man, did she not say .'all right my love , you will be comftable'.
b] The fire was lit early morning, before kelly left her room . and was seen by Lewis, and Maxwell,
I would plump for she lit the fire, when she returned with Hutchinsons man, and she , or possible her killer , added more fuel and started it up again between 8am -915am that morning.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 3:24 pm: | |
Dear Richard,
The fact that it was believed the spout was melted off that night is irrelevant. What was the basis for the belief? There is none. A fire had been lit in the grate, accepted, the kettle had lost its spout, accepted, the fact that someone put two and two together and deduced that it was that fire that melted that spout at that time is not accepted.
The heat required to melt the solder in use at the time is quite considerable. When writing my book I checked with solder manufacturers about the composition and melting temperature of solder in use at that time.
Speaking from memory I believe the solder melts at 160 deg but loses adhesion at about 140 deg, however both temperatures are not reachable in a fire using clothes as fuel. This is simple physics. It would have required a very hot wood fire, such as from pitch pine or birch, or a coal fire. Any fire burning that hot would have consumed all its fuel and gone out leaving cold ashes a long time before the police entered the room. Ask anyone who runs an Aga. How many times have you come down in the morning to find the fire out and the ashes cold?
We know the fuel consisted of old clothes, the remains were found, again pointing towards a slowly smouldering fire rather than a roaring inferno.
|
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
Bob!
Speaking as one who ran a Rayburn for many years!!!!!sod the solder! I just can't get beyond the fact that the kettle's spout probably 'melted off days before..if not as you say months!! WHO IS TO SAY THAT THE KETTLE HADN'T BEEN IN THT CONDITION FOR...AGES!!!!!!
Think Mary Bob!!..come on we've all felt like that!...have'nt we!! cold,tired and wet...what would you do??
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
Bob
Why would Mary, who probably had very few clothes of her own (give or take the odd wrap around shawl..maroon by preference !) put clothes on the fire..perhaps they were the ubiquitous clothes left by 'Maria Harvey'! Hmm.Incidently. what about Ripperana No47 Mark Kelly alive in 1901 article...Ref.Mary from Dowlais was picked up from the Union Workhouse,Thomas Town,Merthyr Tydfil.."discharged to the police with Mrs Harvey" Interesting 'eh?..........Too many Harveys for my liking!!
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 45
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Bob-
For Mark Kelly read Mary!!..whoops! must take more water with it!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 1:45 am: | |
Hi Bob,and co,
There is a very strong reason , why I suggest that the kettle spout melted that night / morning, that being did not Maurice Lewis claim to see Mary return to her room with some milk?. unless she fancied a bowl of coco pops, I would suggest , she required the milk for tea making, which would be not practical, if the kettle had not been of any good for some time.
Regarding Fuel, we have no reports of any coal etc, in that room, but we cannot be certain there was not a small supply, was it not suggested by McCarthy . that the man M.j k lived with was a coal porter named Kelly?.[ Barnett] .
It is entirely possible that Barnett was able to get a small amount of coal for her.
My wish for the coming year is that , a lot more people on these boards , will get used to the fact, that Kelly was killed later am. then has always been believed, its proberly taking everything into account 80/20, in favour of 9am or later.
Cheers for now
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
