|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 23, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The fire in Kelly's room.:
Archive through June 23, 1999
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 10:41 pm |        | Good Evening all
Its always been really inconclusive as to whether Kelly's heart was removed and taken away, or removed and destroyed or removed but found in the room afterwards.
One news report has it that the heart was missing, another has it that the body was complete when finally laid to rest, or words to that effect.
I stumbled across a copy of this article in Jones & Lloyds, 'The Ripper File'....from 'The Sunday Times' Nov 11, 1888
I quote:
A somewhat important investigation was made yesterday in the room in Miller's Court in which the woman was murdered. The Police had reason to believe the murderer had burnt something before leaving the room after the crime, and accordingly the ashes and other matter in the grate were carefully preserved.
Yesterday afternoon Dr Phillips and Dr MacDonald, MP, the coroner for the district, visited Miller's Court and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve, it was subjected to a close scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the Police.
[end of quote]
Abberline went thru the ashes following the door being forced, but he was just looking for general evidence, not being medically trained he would not be expected to identify a charcoaled body part. Indeed at that time there was no reason to be looking for such an item.
So what was missing that required 2 experienced medical men to go thru ashes so carefully ?
If it was just general evidence again then Police would have done the job, but this must have been a medical issue. Something missing from the body.
Something not found in the previous examination and search of the room.
They must have been looking in the fire grate as a last resort. And being medical men they might well have been looking for the remains of a burnt organ, the only one rumored to be missing, was her heart.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 10:09 pm | | G'day Jon
Gotta admit with ya mate. I don't reckon the heart was burnt in the fireplace. We gotta remember that Jack was in the habit of taking his 'trophies' with him.
What concerns me though is, if the fire was so hot to melt the spout on the kettle, then how much ash would have been left anyway.
I've been to some bloody beaut barbies in my time, and after surveying the damage the morning after, there's bugger all left in the fireplace apart from unedible bits of sheep and other sorts of roadkill. Clothing does not stand a chance of survival in barbies of Australian magnitude, so how did they find remnants of clothes in Mary's fireplace?
And another thing. Clothing alone would not have made a fire hot enough to melt the spout of a kettle. They made things to last in them days.
Fair dinkum I reckon we're onto something here.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 03:26 am | | Hey All!
What about that spontaneous combustion thingy? Did Mary's killer put some of her body fat on the fire, causing that 'wick effect' that produces a phenomenal degree of heat for a short time? When this died its natural death, the clothes went on and were left to smoulder.
Any thoughts?
(God, the smell would have been pretty gross, maybe the killer covered his nose with the red kerchief? :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sara
Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 12:18 am | | Caz:
James Tully ("Prisoner 1167. The Madman who was JtR") had an interesting take on the fire in MJK's room. pp.263 - 265.
In effect, Maria Harvey, laundress/pro stole the clothes to sell or to pawn, discovered the cops were on to her, took them to MJK's room for safekeeping, realized that wasn't obscure enough (they were known ex-roomates) and had to get rid of the evidence. "Just then, however, Barnett had arrived and Harvey beat a hasty retreat, but she returned later to retrieve her bonnet and the pawn ticket and the two women then burned all the identifiable clothing."
He also addresses light sources within the room, the flammability of wool (it melts) and other fabrics as well as the duration of such...
I thought it pertinent to the fire "mystery".
All the best , Sara
P.S. Did I read somewhere that the only items left unburnt and in fact, in pristine condition were a dozen red neckerchiefs and a small yellow glove puppet? Could someone footnote that for me? |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 12:24 am | | G'day Caz
Yeah mate, the idea that Mary's body fat was used on the fire has been suggested, but I think fat burns pretty quickly and evidently the fireplace was still warm when the police used an ax handle to open Mary's room some 6 hours later.
I dunno mate, this one's got me stuffed.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 04:04 am | | Hey Sara, Jules and all!
God, Sara, your mentioning that yellow peril made me realise something. I darn well forgot my own suspect's birthday! Weedon Grossmith celebrated by himself (upstairs or down, this thing needs more work) on June 9th, and shared the day with Cole Porter (Sooty's one-time pseudonym) and Donald Duck (absolutely true, you can check!).
The small 'coal porter' no doubt supplied the barbie briquettes, so a receipt and/or cheque stub should sort the whole thing out to everyone's complete satisfaction :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 10:30 am | | Hi all,
One point about Kelly's death and the fire bit still bothers me. It was testified that Kelly had a light in her room at ca. 2 am that morning. Later it was noted by the police that a candle found in the room had evidently not been used. (Kelly had bought a candle for 1 1/2d. a day or so before)
Now, if Kelly had not used the candle, what had she (or someone else) used to make the light in the room? If I have understood correctly, the clothes found burnt were left there only a day or so before. Kelly was drunk and presumably cold that night, and may have had a customer of some importance to her. In any case, she was alive at the time.
I have long suspected that Jack had nothing, or at least little, to do with this fire. Indeed, the assumption that Jack found the room a sort of 'bonus' is, to my way of thinking, not necessarily correct.
The place had a number of drawbacks for him, the first being that he would be trapped by anyone who happened to come by at the right moment. He couldn't make his first cuts from the usual side because of the wall. If he was there as the fire burnt he could be seen (and identified) by anyone passing the window. (I assume that the pilot coat was not big enough to cover both windows).
I think there could be grounds for supposing that Jack may have come later. The evidence that suggests that Kelly had the sheet drawn over her face as she was attacked would tend to support the theory that she was attacked as she slept. Bitter cold as it was, and the fire out or just smouldering, she may have covered her head (as I did as a kid in the winter, we had no heating either then) to keep her face warm.
The bit about the spout and the kettle has never convinced me. Who knows when the spout got melted off? It could have happened at any time prior to the murder.
A fire of clothes alone would, I submit, tend to smoulder and not produce the roaring furnace that seems to have been envisaged by some. I suggest that to keep the fire at least half-way going (to produce the light testified to), it must have been tended to somewhat regularly (with e.g. poker). Kelly was heard singing for some time, while light was seen. Can it be that she burnt the clothes to get the room a little warm before going to bed?
Her own clothes were not touched, which tends to preclude Jack as the burner, and as aforementioned, Jack would not have been too happy about a lot of light in the room puting him at risk.
The fire was searched next day for evidence of burnt flesh, but none was found, so it does not seem probable that Kelly was used as fuel. Of course, she may have had some other firing material such as paper, wood etc.as well, but clothes were certainly burnt. That the fireplace was still warm at midday may be due to the very slow smoulder of the material, I remember burning my fingers on the remains of a pile of rags I'd set fire to (Yeah, I played with fire as a kid) the evening before.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 10:49 pm | | G'day Bob,
Good to see you again. I'm convincing myself (and that doesn't take much) that the clothes burnt were Jacks and he had a spare pair just for this occasion. Mary wouldn't have burnt her own clothes as they would have been fairly prized possions back in those days.
I've just had a thought. Mary's clothes were found folded on the chair right? Yeah. and no blood was found on them right? Yeah. and Mary was found in bed with a chamoise on right? Yeah. Well wouldn't that indicate that Mary was killed in her sleep. I mean if she was killed by the person who was going to bonk her brains out, then why was she still wearing her chamoise? Surely if she was doing a trick she would have taken all her gear off.
As for the kettle thing. We don't know that it was the fire that night that melted the spout. That could have happened any time. But the fact the chimney was still warm hours later is baffling.
Just some more thoughts.
Jules |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 05:10 am | | Hi y'all.
When did Mary's kettle spout melt? Among those testifying at her inquest were: Landlord McCarthy, friend Maria Harvey & boyfriend Barnett. Each had the means of knowing the state of Mary's kettle - which in a tea drinking culture held a place of honor in most kitchens.
McCarthy testified "The bedstead, bed-clothes, table, and every article of furniture belonged to me." When Mrs. McCarthy cleaned the rooms (daily I believe), she would naturally keep a lookout for possible damage - thereby giving items belonging to tenants at least a cursory glance.
Maria Harvey slept over on Monday & Tuesday nights. She came back to visit Thursday, leaving in the afternoon - when Joe Barnett came to visit. Joe left between 7:30 pm & 7:45 pm.
Inspector Abberline testified regarding the fire in the grate & the melted kettle spout, so that info wasn't being kept secret. Would he leap to a conclusion regarding the fire's size & intensity - rather than question 3 witnesses right in front of his nose? Nothing I've read convinces me Abberline was tremendously stupid.
To 3 witnesses with intimate knowledge of Mary's room - we can add various other neighbors popping in and out during the week to say hi or trying to borrow a shawl or whatnot ... Mary liked to socialize.
It's pretty long odds that none of those people could say - Yes, the kettle caught fire Wednesday, OR - No, the kettle looked fine Thursday afternoon.
If I make an assumption, it's only logical to leap in the MOST LIKELY direction ... The kettle spout melted the night/morning of Nov. 8th/9th. Any rebuttal?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 06:06 am | | Janice -
What's your source for Mrs. McCarthy claiming to have cleaned the rooms daily? Did she say so in her inquest testimony? I ask simply because I do not recall this claim having been made before, and would have thought it questionable as to whether the rooms were cleaned at all, let alone daily!
Regards
Guy |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 06:53 am | | GUY: Hi. Rumblelow's Complete Casebook hardback 1988 "However, according to the Illustrated Police News, Mrs. M'Carthy adhered very 'strictly to the principle of "ready" cash in dealing with lodgers. It is usually her practice to wait on them in the course of the morning, and receive each day's rent in advance.' This was normal practice throughout the area."
Perhaps I read too much meaning into "wait on them." I thought instead of barging in demanding the daily rent - she possibly used minor cleaning as an excuse to wake up folks with a night owl lifestyle & request the rent before they could spend it in the pubs.
According to Sudgen & others, Liz Stride was paid for cleaning 2 rooms at the doss house where she was staying on September 29th ...
You caught me right before I shuffled off to bed. If I find any other references to The Joys of Doss Housekeeping :^) - I'll post them tomorrow.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Villon
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 01:39 pm | | Hello everyone.
Janice:
First of all, my compliments on your commonsense approach and admirably thorough research.
I think you might like to know that in nineteenth-century usage to 'wait on' someone meant to pay them a call, social or otherwise, so there's no reason to suppose that Mrs Mac cleaned up after her lodgers. Presumably she 'waited on' Kelly each morning to make sure she got her daily rent.
Hope this helps.
Mike |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 19 June 1999 - 07:09 pm | | In the inquest papers concerning Mary Kelly (reference number R1095, Corporation of London Greater London Record Office), Abberline had this to say concerning the melted kettle spout:
"I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire so large as to melt the spout off the kettle[.] I have since gone through the ashes in the grate and found nothing of consequence except that articles of womans [sic] clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room - "
As Ashling noted, Abberline was probably not stupid. If he thought the fire of November 8-9 melted the spout, then there was probably a good reason for believing so. Unfortunately, as in so much in the Ripper case, we have only words relating a conclusion with no idea as to how the conclusion was reached. Was the metal connecting spout to kettle still bubbling? Did Abberline find the spout in the ashes? Did he speak with McCarthy or Barnett regarding the kettle, yet consider the fact of his questioning them on such a minor point too trivial to mention to the coroner's jury? If only we knew how he deduced that the fire melted the kettle spout, we would be better placed to assign creation of the fire to Jack or Mary.
Bob - good to see you back on the boards! You an Julian raise an interesting point in positing that Kelly might have been asleep when murdered. If such were the case, it would - in my mind - render it almost impossible for her killer to have been a stranger. He must have known how to enter the locked flat. He must have known he would not be disturbed by Joe Barnett or some other visitor. He must have been either so familiar to Kelly that his unexpected presence were she to suddenly awaken would not cause outcry, or know he could reach and silence her before she could raise the alarm.
It almost HAS to be Barnett from that, doesn't it?
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 20 June 1999 - 05:18 am | | G'day Christopher,
Here in 'Casebook', under 'Dissertations/Joseph Barnett', Dr Frederick Walker writes:
On the 1st of September 1908, Anderson stated in the Daily Chronicle that 'there were only two real clues: the Goulston Street graffiti', (indicating the direction the killer fled) 'and JOE BARNETTS PIPE', (where he left it after he killed her).
I reckon that JOES our man, but the chosen motive, is one that people can't accept.
Abberline interigated BARNETT for four hours after the final murder, because of what he found in the room: the warm fireplace, the candle and Joes pipe. I reckon he was 'cleared' because police were looking for 'Jack' and they couldn't link him enough to the other victims.
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 20 June 1999 - 09:04 pm | | Leanne -
Exactly. Your thoughts parallel what Stewart's book says about Dr Tumblety; the police were looking for the killer of five women, including Kelly, and if Tumblety could prove he were not the killer of one, then they would not consider him the killer of any.
The same with Barnett. Mary Jane Kelly was assumed from the beginning to be a Ripper victim (pace Harry Bowyer's cry to the police of "Jack the Ripper! Awful! McCarthy sent me!"); Barnett might have been damned suspicious, but if he could prove an alibi for Eddowes, Stride, Chapman and Nichols, then his innocence in regards to Kelly would be heavily presumed.
So, as Alex Chisholm says, perhaps the quest for Jack the Ripper as the killer of five women is forever doomed to failure!
CMD |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 06:01 am | | G'day Christopher,
At Kelly's inquest: George Hutchinson said "I took him as a foreigner" and that's just what they wanted to hear: "FOREIGNER".
So the police were after 'Jack', who in there opinion couldn't possibly be an Englishman.
LEANNE |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 07:48 am | | Hi y'all.
George Hutchinson did NOT testify at Mary Kelly's inquest - Per A-Z, Sugden & others.
Who is Dr. Frederick Walker? What are his "Ripper credentials?" I know only 2 things about him:
1. He says he doesn't live in London.
2. At the end of one of Walker's dissertations --- Stewart posted 5 points which expose several errors in Walker's theory ... Not a peep out of Walker since.
MIKE: Thanks for your kind encouragement, plus the additional "wait on" definition. Previously, I only knew vistors "called on" folks, hence leaving calling cards. Learn something new every day.
However, even if Mrs. McCarthy stood in the doorway to collect rent instead of entering the rooms to clean ... that just demotes her from the "probably saw" the kettle category - to the "possibly saw." Barnett & Maria are still probables.
C-M: A good summary of several points. Consider this possibility ... A drunken Mary falls into a heavy slumber - perhaps even forgetting to lock the door???
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 09:21 am | | Nope, our Mary neatly folded her clothes before retiring...or whatever she was doing before she was attacked, so she couldn't have fallen into a drunken stupor. I know that just before I fall into my bed in a drunken stupor my clothes are lying balled up in a random location/locations.
Edana |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 06:51 pm | | Yep, Edana, she did, didn't she? That could indicate she was trying to make a good impression on someone she saw as a 'classy' dude or a new beau.
Perhaps she had aspirations of becoming one of the new-beau riche?
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 10:59 pm | | Maybe the Ripper folded MJ's clothes after he killed her. He apparently did have a thing about clothes, didn't he? I mean, with all that fireplace fodder. Maybe he put her clothes on himself and danced about the room before he folded them up nicely. Who knows exactly what the beep he did while alone in that room? I'd wager a hidden automated videocam would have recorded some MIGHTY unusual sights that night.
Here is another thought on the MJ scene. Notice in photo #2 on the table there is a certain distance in between the fabric posture riser at the back of the table and MJ's amputated breasts on the front. My question: What was in the middle taking up space while the Ripper put the breasts on the front of the table? Catch my drift? Maybe he brought something with him and set it down there, otherwise the breasts maybe wouldn't be so neatly piled at the front only. Maybe it was a medical or Gladstone bag. Eh?
Good night, folks. I must confess to being devastated by DiGrazia's "somebody" thing, and am retiring a sadder man.
David |
|
|
|
|
