|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 339
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:22 pm: |       |
I'm a bit surprised others haven't bit on this because I'm rather intrigued by it myself.
Just to clarify, I am not saying that there was any case of spontaneous human combustion in Mary's room or even that such a phenomenon exists. I am saying experiments have shown that animal fat wrapped in cloth can burn very long and very hot when ignited. I suspect a candlemaker might know this.
Would there be melted fat in the fireplace? No. The fat is the fuel for the fire. The fire goes out when all the fat (fuel) is consumed. I'd be more prone to suspect an odor of burned flesh in the room. Remember, however, that the room was not entered until hours later, when such an odor may have dissipated.
Let's also remember McCarthy's somewhat suspicious behavior that morning. He sends his "boy" to collect the rest. OK, perhaps he had a good reason for doing this. But it is convenient that McCarthy, if he were the murderer, is not the one to find the body. I've always thought his behavior in breaking open the door with an axe is bizarre. As landlord, he of all people, should have either had a pass key or known that he could simply release the latch by reaching through the broken window -- unless, of course, he wanted the police to believe that he had no access to the locked room.
Andy S.
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 187
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Andy S-
Axe?? Pick-axe??
suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi Andy,
I do not regard it as strange, for McCarthy to send Bower, to her room, to chase up rent, after all he was his go-for.
Why the police asked him to break open the door puzzles me, after all this was a murder investigation, and I would have thought, any one of the policemen present, could have forced, the door to gain entry, police nowadays, are breaking doors open on a daily bases, and do not have to obtain permission, from the landlords do they?.
The door issue will simply not go away, the door was clearly locked, and secured, the police were not idoits, and they obviously, would have opened the door by means less violent , if it was at all possible, the obvious thing would have been to enter through the window, after all the worry about disturbing fingerprints, would not have been an issue, and try and find a key in the room. that the door could have been unlocked.
The whole of this murder, is surrounded by classic mysterys..
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Hi Andy
Yes, it's interesting that McCarthy had to prise the door open because he had no spare key, even though he was the landlord! When I brought this up before, I was told that duplicate keys were expensive.
Suzi, I don't want to sidetrack the thread here. Just to say that Kelly was a working prostitute, for whom appearance was important. Caz told me that she wouldn't have worn the pilot coat to go out in, even though it was cold and wet, because it would have made her look unattractive. So if there was no mirror in her room, it's a bit odd. Of course, she may have had a small piece of glass, like Nichols.
If there was no mirror, then it's true that Jack could not have viewed his face by firelight, but he could have viewed the rest of himself.
Robert |
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Hi Fire burners
Another thought struck me while sleeping last night. Paul Begg had informed me that its possible that Kellys room had originally been the Kitchen part of the house before being partissioned, which would explain the large fire place (well larger that a bedroom fireplace). It stuck me that the brick dust bin in the court yard had always been depicted rather large. And why brick. What if this structure had originally been the coal shed or designed to store burning material.
I went up to Epping Forest just before Xmas and stocked up with logs for free, so perhaps fuel would not have been that expensive. Maybe a few tricks and you got the coalman to drop off a hot sack? If she could heat water and had a tin bath under her bed she'd also have a neat side line doing washing fo other peolpe, which would explain the clothes. Mary Jane Kelly always had a clean apron perhaps she did washing on the side.
Just a night thought, Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 191
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Dan-
(Register!)
This is a slightly quirky post..'surgeons need light so that they can see well enough to not actually screw and kill the patient or something!!!'Strikes me that that happened anyway and I don't think in my wildest dreams that Jack came in looking for a nice little op!!
CB - thanks for agreeing with me!!....come on..it makes sense!!
Carry on chaps..nice long Friday night!
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
Suzi wrote:
"As I recall there was no mirror in that room"
There was a hand mirror listed as one of the contents of the room. I've been researching mirrors and Marys for several years for a book about Bloody Mary (the children's game, not the monarch or drink) so remember that pretty well.
Andy S. wrote:
"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."
Perhaps the mutilation of MJK was the sin that went so far that hell itself opened up and consumed him. That'd explain why he was never caught, right?
CB wrote:
"Remember there is no wrong theories because there is no definate answer to who the ripper was."
Um, well, as an actual historical event there is, in fact, a definite answer. Whether any of us will ever find it is a different question. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 199
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
Hi Dan- Try as i might I can't find any reference to mirrors of any description in Millers Court!
As to Mary's appearance..Walter Dew who allegedly knew her well by sight says'she was good looking and 'paraded' around the district usually in the company of two or three friends,she never wore a hat and she always wore a spotlessly clean apron' I prefer the lovely Colin Wilson's line..looking like a woman who was capable of felling a carthorse with an uppercut
Well??
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 200
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi all
apropo of all the earlier radiator stuff,..just been chatting to my chum Heather who suggested that all that blood must have played hell with that undersheet electric blanket!! A&S P I'm sure will agree..good job they didn't have the dreaded underfloorheating eh?!
Silly...but no worse than radiators!!
Suzi |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 340
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:26 am: | |
Dan --
I realize you're having a bit of a laugh and there's nothing wrong with that. But please don't take my comments out of context. I made it clear that I was not implying there was anything like spontaneous human combustion going on in Mary's room. I was merely drawing a comparison to an experiment related to the investigation of SHC.
Suzi --
I think you made your point sufficiently that you consider my suggestion to be ridiculous that there may have been a radiator in the room. It's not really that important a point to me. But why do you feel the need to constantly ridicule my suggestion? I may be incorrect, but am I really worthy of such mocking? I don't think it was that outlandish.
Perhaps I'm getting a bit thin skinned in my old age, but I consider this offensive.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on January 11, 2004) |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 341
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:55 am: | |
Let me clarify. I agree that it's not particularly "strange" for McCarthy to send his man Bowyer to collect the rent. But it is quite convenient that someone else discovers the body. If McCarthy is the first to find it, he perhaps falls under suspicion.
The axe is another matter. I concede that duplicate keys were perhaps not common (I don't know). But McCarthy must have known the type of lock that was on the door. He could see the broken window. It should have occurred to him to reach through the window and unlock the door -- unless he were trying to show the police he had no access to the room.
As to the police forcing the door, they are generally reluctant to do this if the owner is present. Why run the liability of having to pay for damage?
I really don't suspect McCarthy. It's just an interesting idea I'm playing with. Who knows?
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Hi Andy
Re the age of the houses in Dorset St, I have gone back to the Viper's Whitechapel Dossier in the Dissertations section. He says that the houses dated from the late 17th to the early 18th centuries, and that Leonard Matters's photos of Nos 26 and 27 appear to show houses built to post 1709 regulations.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 211
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Andy S
No offence meant.apologies for any taken
Suzi |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 3:32 am: | |
I'm a little curious as to why there is no report of anyone seeing the light from the fire in Mary's room. One witness testifies to hearing men go in and out of the court all night, but none of them come back later and say they noticed a light coming from Mary's room? A super hot fire would have to be very bright and on a cold, dark night, such a detail should stick out in the mind of every person that passed through the court after the last time Mary was seen.
Any comments on this?
Eric |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Hi Robert
Thanks for the tip will check it out. As I mentioned Paul Begg thought the building was likely to have been built as you have stated.
It would also figure that the original designs are somewhere on record and should be tracable. This might possibly answer exactly what the fireplace looked like. If there is a design number for the fireplace it is likely one still exists somewhere.
I'm very interested in tracing this for the model I'm constructing. What is interesting is that small details such as this can sometimes lead to other discoveries or trains of thought.
Thanks for tip.
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Jeff, Eric
You're welcome, Jeff, though it's worth pointing out that the Viper seems to have thought that Miller's Court itself - as opposed to 13 Room, which was structurally part of Dorset St - was built around the mid 19th century.
The article mentioned at the bottom of the page - "Overcrowding in a school room" - is also worth a look.
Eric, yes it's a bit odd. Unless it was a very brief fire, I suppose we must put this down as one factor on the side of those who believe Kelly was killed during daylight hours.
PS We must re-activate the time travel thread some time.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 241
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Robert
Am tantalised by that one!! see you outside Ringers in 10 minutes then!!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
OK, Suzi, I'll meet you yesterday.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 243
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Right Robert-
Will see if I made it!
suzi |
Roger Fleming
Police Constable
Username: Roger
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
I started looking at this board sometime in January 2003, and applied for a logon - but it took so long to arrive I forgot all about it. Now I've just come across it while cleaning out some old email, so I'll finally have my .02! Here it is (was):
A poster suggested [a year ago] that anaesthetics may have been used as accelerants on the fire. This is unlikely. There were two commonly used anaesthetics at the time, chloroform and ether. Chloroform is not flammable - in fact it has even been tried as a fire extinguisher. Ether, on the other hand, is flammable - but so extremely, violently flammable that using it to light the fire would have been a good way to get yourself blown backwards out the window, with eyebrows burned off and clothes aflame.
In fact I think there is absolutely no reason to believe the fire was particularly hot. Most evidence, in fact, seems to suggest that it was not. The whole "blazing fire" idea seems to stem solely from the fact that the spout was melted off the kettle. But cheap tin kettles simply had their spouts soldered on! The melting point of solder depends on the exact type, but some are as low as 175°C and can be easily melted by a candle. In normal use, the water in the kettle stops it from reaching a temperature above 100°C, so the solder is safe. But if the kettle is allowed to boil dry, and the heat source continued, it is not at all unlikely that the temperature will eventually be high enough to melt solder, even from a smouldering pile of rags.
No doubt people who used such kettles were well aware of the consequences of letting one boil dry, so the damaged spout tells us that either the fire was lit by someone who didn't care about the kettle, or else someone who intended to remove it when it boiled, but was never able to do so (or perhaps, just forgot). But that is all the kettle tells us; it does not suggest the fire was hot.
Cheers,
Roger |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 372
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Hi Roger and welcome to the forum!
Do you think that a fire fueled only by burning clothing would be hot enough and last long enough to melt the spout off? I tend to doubt it -- even though what you say about the low melting point is true. I just wonder whether Mary was able to afford firewood since she was so far behind in her rent. I suppose she could have scavenged scrapes of wooden crating. And I suppose the presence of a teapot at all implies that she was able to manage the occasional fire.
Still, let's remember one thing. The police (Abberline, I believe) seemed to attach some importance to the fire and the detached spout. Surely they knew of the melting point of solder. Also, we are just assuming this was a cheap teapot with a soldered spout. A likely assumption, but not proven.
There is still something nagging to me about the fire.
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi,
According to Maurice Lewis, who was reputed to have known kelly , for about four years, he saw kelly that morning return to her room with some milk.
If this is true, then surely there would have been fresh milk in her room, if the police found such an item , that would have aroused suspision , that kelly was killed after that time, if they found no milk in her room, Lewis surely would have been questioned why he made such a false claim, to the press in such an important investigation.
If True, then kelly obviously required the use of milk, the most logical reason being to make tea, which would imply she had some kind of fuel in her room , to light the fire , and boil the kettle.
The most obvious explanation therefore , is either she , or her killer, started to boil the water, if she was then killed, the kettle would boil dry, because she was then in no condition, to remove the said item, and the killer, would have had other things on his mind.
Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 442
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 5:23 am: | |
Richard,
That would indeed explain the kettle, but it still doesn't explain the milk. If Kelly bought milk and took it back to her room, and the tea was not made so she did not use it, why was no milk listed among the items found in the room? |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 643
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
Richard,
Isn't it possible that even if she did buy milk that morning then maybe it wasn't to make tea, maybe she just wanted to drink it on it's own. I do this and I'm sure many other do and did.
Isn't it possible that the kettle had had it's spout burnt off before her murder? Was the kettle hot when her body was discovered? Had water poured out of the spout and onto the floor, which would have happened had it been left to boil as in your theory.
Sarah |
Rene Lehnert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 2:38 am: | |
Hi everybody,
I am new to this board (as an active poster), although I follow it for quite some time. I have just ordered my Sudgen-Book, so I am not an expert as you folks are. But I have followed this thread. Hopefully my rambling does not offend you (as so far I lack the expertise and knowledge).
Roger:
I studied chemistry, so I know what I am talking about. You are absolutely right about the anaesthetics and especially about the kettle. To really understand, if the pile of clothing was really hot enough to melt the solder, one should have to know the size of the kettle (how long does it take for it to run dry, if (say) filled ¾ up), how large was the fireplace, what was the distance between the smoldering (burning) clothing and the kettle Actually I can imagine, that had to be some burning wood under clothing. I imagine Mary or her murderer throwing the clothing on the wood, instead of kindling the fire with it.
So I think Mary kindled the fire (in order to get warm, dry the clothing, make some tea, make it comfortable for the custumer... I don’know). Jack simply did not mind the fire, maybe even welcomed it, and the kettle went dry and started to melt some time in the morning, after Jack left.
René
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
