| Author |
Message |
    
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 10:03 am: |       |
By the way re ginger beer bottles, the deposit on them in 1888 would have been a farthing, not very much even by 1888 standards. Millions of them were just thrown away, for me to come along 115 years later and dig them up. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 327
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
I think there are two questions unanswered here that must be answered before we can conclude much about the fire in Mary's room.
1. Do the remains of clothing in the fireplace indicate that this was the fuel used for the fire, or was this a wood fire onto which some clothing was thrown in order to dispose of it? We don't know. The report doesn't mention wood ashes, but these may have been so commonplace as to have not merited mention.
2. Was there any other source of heat in Mary's room, such as a radiator? If so, then it is probably safe to assume that Mary did not often use the fireplace, since firewood would be expensive beyond her means. But if the fireplace was the only source of heat, she may have been forced to procure firewood despite the expense, and thus used the fireplace regularly on cold evenings.
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 169
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
Andy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A RADIATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SURE THEY WERE RUN OF THE "MILL" IN MILLERS COURT 1888!!
cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Andy, I confess I'm puzzled by your suggestion of a radiator.
Also, if there was a radiator in that room, wouldn't Kelly have hung her wet clothes on it?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 173
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Robert-
I rest my case!!..lovely image though isn't it!!..little storage heater in Millers court!..Maybe hence."Come with me and you will be comfortable!"
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Suzi |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 328
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Suzi:
I don't know if hot water heat was run-of-the-mill or not in Miller's Court in 1888. Surely, that method of heating was around for decades by then. I find it very, very unlikely that each dwelling in McCarthy's Rents had a fireplace for heat -- especially since these rooms were just partitioned off. Therefore -- there must have been some other mode of heating at least in the other rooms. If not a hot-water radiator, what then?
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 329
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
Robert:
Exactly my point!!! We have speculated that Mary lit a fire in the fireplace to dry out here wet clothes. Maybe she would have just but her wet clothes/shoes against a radiator and never lit a fire at all. Again I ask, how could she afford firewood? She surely couldn't have survived long on burning old clothes.
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Hi Andy
Sorry if I'm not grasping your point here. If you're saying that perhaps Kelly was drying her clothes with the radiator, then why were they on the chair? They wouldn't have been next to the radiator there, because the chair would have been next to the partition - an impossible place for a radiator.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 330
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Hi Robert:
I can see that I'm obviously not making myself clear at all. Sorry about that.
All I'm really saying is that there is no real reason to suspect that Mary lit a fire in her fireplace for the purpose of drying clothing or for any other purpose that night. Maybe she did light a fire and maybe she didn't. Maybe she dried her clothes on a radiator and then placed them over the chair when dry. Maybe they weren't even wet! We don't know.
My point has more to do with how likely it was that Mary even used the fireplace herself very often. If there was another means of heat, I'd say she probably used the fireplace sparingly if at all. Perhaps just small fires of scrap wood for heating water.
Sorry I've not been more clear. It would be interesting to know whether such buildings had radiant heat and, if not, how the unlucky folks without a fireplace in their rooms kept warm. When was this building originally constructed? I would think hot water or steam radiant heat fueled by a coal-burning boiler was the dominant form of heat in Victorian London.
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:42 am: | |
Robert-
Help me out here!! I,m trying to get my head round this!!
Cheers,
Suzi |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
Its obvious!!! They forgot the torch or JTR was on his own in Millers Court. Had a BIG fire to light up the room like an operating theatre in a hospital. Could you imagine a surgeon today performing a 'Mary Kelly' type op without enough light to illuminate the Albert Hall?
A. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 177
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Hi Andy and Sue-
Right so we've got the mega halogen torch,nice comfy central heating system,and a nise shiny set of Swann Mortons to do a professional job..praps he bought the ginger beer with him to to provide inter-op and apres -op refreshment!! Makes sense!
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 944
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Andy,
I really don't think a radiator would be a realistic object in 1888, and certainly not in poor dwellings like those in Miller's Court. Even if such items were around I can asure you they would mainly have been inserted in storeys belonging to the better middle and upper class, hardly in a joint like that. As far as I know, I haven't heard of radiators in the 1880's, merely fire-places and tiled stoves.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 332
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
I'm not trying to belabor my point, but now my curiosity is up.
If the fireplace was the only form of heat in McCarthy's building, how did tenants in the other rooms stay warm in winter? If she had to rely solely on the fireplace for heat, how could Mary afford fuel (wood or coal) to burn? OTOH, if heat were provided by a central boiler the cost may have been included in her rent.
Radiant heat involves only heating water in large tank by means of a coal fire and running the hot water via pipes throughout the building. Very low tech, very low cost, particularly in the steam age.
When was this building built? If it was a cheap, thrown together building for low-income tenants I would agree that such heat is unlikely. If, however, it was built some years earlier for another purpose I would wonder why such heating would not have been provided.
Who has a knowledge of Victorian construction that could give us an answer that would be more than speculation?
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 103
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Andy,
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but just read contemporary stories like those of Doyle. Holomes and Watson were in a position to afford the best, but they just simply had the ubiquitous fire. Lower on the social scale why do you suppose the servants always gathered in the kitchen? Because the stove provided heat that was otherwise unavailable.
We are told number 13 was a thrown together room, partioned off from a shed, so Kelly can be lucky to have had a fireplace. Elizabeth Prater lived over Kelly's room so she probably also had a fireplace served by the same chimney. And she and Kelly were thus lucky.
How did people stay warm? They likely didn't, at least by our modern definition of "warm," and that is another reason the folks in Whitechapel "enjoyed" such horrendous health. They wore a lot of clothes, even indoors, clustered together, slept several in a bed, spent as much time in pubs as possible, drank things like gin and hot water and so on. Life was miserable.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 334
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
On to another point (finally! -- though I'm still not 100% convinced about the lack of heating).
The description of what appeared to be the remains of a great fire in the fireplace suddenly resonated to me as similar to remains of so-called spontaneous human combustion cases. In reports of such cases, human remains were often charred in such a way as to suggest a roaring fire but the rest of the room was found to be undamaged. Experiments using animal fat wrapped in cloth to simulate human tissue in clothing have produced a fire that burns with a very low flame, but also very hot -- hot enough to destroy the animal tissue. It is thought that the animal fat content provides the fuel and the clothing acts as a wick.
So, what if JTR wrapped tissue (possibly including her heart) from Mary in the clothing found in the fireplace and burned it? Such a fire would have produced light for a long time but not so much light as to attract attention from outside. It also would have burned very hot, quite hot enough to damage the teapot directly above it.
"Fuel" for thought!
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 335
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Following on my previous post:
Who might know how to fashion such a fire using animal tissue (fat) and cloth? I suppose a butcher might, since he would be used to working with animal fats.
Might not a candle maker also know? Highly, highly speculative, but it there a finger pointing McCarthy's way?
Andy S.
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
There's too many Andy's on the casebook site, I'm confused. Who's going to be the first Andy to volunteer to change their name to Angela?
Parlour. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 337
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
That's why I always sign "Andy S." 
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 181
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Donald-I agree!! They had more than was good for them and cuddled up in their hideously damp bedclothes (should have put them on the radiator!) and tried the best they could to sleep!!..Hence 'Diddles' stalking across Mrs Prater woke her so easily (!) Come on... who hasn't had an unfortunate camping experience which resulted in trying to sleep in wet clothes! Brrrrrrrrrrrr.you resort to caveman/woman tactics!
Well?
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi Andy S
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm afraid I can't say when the house was built, though radiators do seem to me unlikely.
I can't help with the spontaneous combustion scenario, except to wonder whether the melted fat wouldn't still be at the bottom of the fire (maybe re-solidified) when Abberline sorted through it? Of course, for all we know it may have been, and just wasn't mentioned.
I'm just wondering whether Jack lit the fire to see himself by. If it was still dark when it was time for him to leave, he may have wanted to check himself from head to toe for bloodstains before walking out. Perhaps if it was dark, he never saw the candle till he'd lit the fire.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
Robert
As I recall there was no mirror in that room so unless jtr brought one of his own that seems unlikely. I think it more likely that he took off his own clothes tio get into bed with Mary,maybe putting them on top of the clothes on the chair..did what he did and then maybe using one of Maria Harvey's bits on the chair wiped himself down and the threw the offending pice of 'laundry' onto the fire and then left!..exit Millers Court left!!|This seems to make more sense to me than jtr preening just before setting out into Dorset St!!..He'd have been done over for sure then!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Fireburners
I have spent most of the day working on a 3D model of Kelly's bedroom. With all the obvious questions. I have found no evidence of a radiator so I think we can dismiss this. Although if I find some budget from somewhere, Paul Begg beleives that the original plans for the building are probably traceable, so hopefully we can answer these questions eventually with some research.
What he did say however was interesting. If kelly's bedroom had been partitioned then it is possible that as it was at the back of the house then it was originally the Kitchen. The fire place may therefore have been bigger than a fireplace designed for a bed room. Remember that Abberline states a kettle hung above the fire and the spout had melted.
My main interest is whether anybody has any idea what the Fire Place might have looked like? We've found some artistic sketches but none actually fit the known spec of the room.
Perhaps we'll just have to wait until further research but if anyone can help out I'd be grateful.
Yours Jeff |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:54 pm: | |
I still dont think the fire in mary's room is important. I mean I dont believe the ripper had anything to do with starting it. We know there was no light on in mary's room after 3:00 in the morning. I think if there was a fire started it had to have been earlier that night. I feel the supposed fire in mary's room is just another false clue that will lead down a dead end. Hi Suzi I tend to agree with you I think the ripper was invited in by Mary. I dont believe he broke in. Remember there is no wrong theories because there is no definate answer to who the ripper was. Take care CB |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Andy wrote:
"Could you imagine a surgeon today performing a 'Mary Kelly' type op without enough light to illuminate the Albert Hall? "
That's not an entirely appropriate comparison, as surgeons need light so they can see well enough to not accidentally screw up and kill the patient or something. Light or no light, Jack's victims still end up dead and slashed. |
