Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 22 May 2000 - 05:37 am |        |
I'm glad to say I have not.
I have made the observation that wollen cloth is used to extinguish fire. Of course it is a fabric that can burn, but could it be efficient for a warming, enduring fire? I know I could try it out with my pullovers, but I have no inclination to do so. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 22 May 2000 - 08:18 am | |
G'day All,
If Kelly's room was cold and she had willingly stipped down to an under-garment, she would have needed a small fire to keep her warm.
The candle could have been near the bed and moved to the larger table, by 'Jack', so he could fit the body parts on the smaller table.
Then out of 'spite', he could have thrown Mrs Harvey's clothes onto the small fire and left.
The only thing to suggest it was a large fire, was the melted spout of a kettle. The kettle could have melted on another night. Being poor, Kelly would not have hurridly got a new one, but tried to make this one last her longer. Why would 'Jack' wait around for a large fire to build, and risk being caught?
Leanne! |
Author: Sara
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 05:41 pm | |
Hello, all - I seem to remember some basic survival tips advising not to drink alcohol to "warm up" if lost/stranded in the cold - that it adds to the hypothermia (or just addles your judgement)(?!)
But then, what were all those Saint Bernards with kegs on their collars on about?
Thank goodness for modern conveniences - it must have been brutal living (and dying, with all due respect) in those days.
All the best,
Sara |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 09:44 pm | |
| I just realized something. If that room was 38 degrees fahrenheit or even marginally warmer due to a fire or whatever, there is no way she would have dressed herself in nothing but that thin chemise unless she was entertaining a customer. I think it blows away the idea that Jack waited till she went to sleep and then crept in and killed her. The only reason she had that thin thing on was that it was part of her service. I took some kids to a summer camp many years ago and "slept" in an unheated cabin with them. The weather turned unseasonably cold (I think it was in the 30's or 40's) and in spite of blankets, sleeping bags etc. etc. we shivered the night away. It was just plain too cold to sleep. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 09:49 pm | |
| Just another thought. This weakens the case against Barnett. If Mary was as fed up with him as we have been led to believe she would not have donned that thing for him and she certainly would not have worn it just to sleep in in that icebox of a room. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 09:52 pm | |
Another great MJ post by the Queen of Miller's Court herself--Ms C. Completely logical and, I think, quite correct.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 10:28 pm | |
G'day Diana,
Joseph Barnett meant little more to Kelly, than the money he gave her and the "meat and other things", that he brought home from work. Why wouldn't she strip down to an undergarment, (as long as there was a small fire burning), to keep him buying her interest?
Leanne! |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 10:33 pm | |
| I thought Venturney or Harvey said words to the effect that she couldn't stand him anymore? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 11:50 pm | |
G'day Diana,
Mary Jane Kelly remarked to her friend Julia Venturney, that 'she could no longer bear' him, 'although Barnett had been good to her'. At the same time, she may have been seeking relief from his suffocating presence, when she took in her two prostitute friends to stay with them in that tiny room, probably forcing Barnett to sleep on the floor.
Leanne! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 05:25 am | |
I think we need to give our Victorian elders a little credit when it comes to deductive reasoning and relative mental power. If they felt that the fire was hot enough to melt the spout off the kettle, then, I assume, the spout was lying next to the kettle or some solder had trickled down the side of the kettle. Otherwise, in the shabby room of Mary Kelly, furnished with empty ginger beer bottles and a broken wine glass, they certainly wouldn't have had any reason to notice a kettle without a spout as anything out of the ordinary.
Incidentally, depending on the particular percentages of the tin/lead alloy used, the melting temperature of the solder on the kettle could be as low as 183 C. The kettle sitting empty next to a coal or wood fire would be sufficient.
All in all, I'm not sold on the idea that the room was cold. Mary's boots were next to the grate and she was undressed. A small coal fire (if it was coal) is almost an anomaly; a deep bed of coals is needed or the fire will go out, and the outside temperature has to be cold or the chimney won't develop enough draft. The sun had been down for over seven hours, but MJK had stayed in her room singing for over an hour; would she have done that if the room was 5 or 6 C? And, as Wolf pointed out, the ashes in the grate were still warm at 1:30 PM.
Don't discount Barnett just yet. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 01:12 pm | |
I don't see any reason why Mary would not wear a nightdress to bed ; the room might have been cold but she had the blankets to snuggle under , and she was wearing bedsocks. Let us not forget that people in the Middle Ages slept NAKED , at least the Victorians had nice night garments to sleep in. More pertinently , what evidence do we have that MJK ever entertained clients in her room at all ? It seems unlikely that Mr Blotchy-Face was a client , he probably just went with Mary for a drink. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 07:24 pm | |
There seems to be some confusion here as to temperature of the room. The days low temperature was 3°C., (38°F.), but as to the temperature of the room, no one knows. The room itself was about 10x12 feet, a rather small size that can easily be heated by it's fireplace grate. Although two of the panes were broken, the curtain and pilot coat covered that window and some descriptions claim that rags were stuffed in the holes. Also consider that the room was part of a larger building and not quite the same as an unheated cabin in the woods. I have to agree with RJ, it is likely that the room was much warmer than 3°C.
There also seems to be some confusion as to what Kelly was wearing. The chemise in which she was found was not a nightdress nor any type of special sleeping garment but part of her underwear. Respectable Victorians would be horrified at the idea of wearing their outer clothes next to their skin where they can easily become soiled. It was much easier and cheaper to wear and wash a cotton chemise than it was to wash outer clothing and cheaper and easier to sleep in your underwear than a nightdress.
As to Simon's thoughts on carroty moustache, ???!!!. Mary Kelly was a known prostitute in desperate need of money and out walking the streets on a cold wet evening. She takes not one, but two different men back to her room (if we can believe Hutchinson), and yet this doesn't suggests that she was using her room for sex with her clients?
Wolf. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 04:09 am | |
A couple of quick points.
At the inquest, Mary Anne Cox (#5 Miller's Court) said she returned to her room at 'about one o'clock' to warm her hands. Is it therefore not likely that the prostitutes of Miller's Court kept the 'home fires burning' while they went out and sought customers on Commercial Street?
Mrs. Cox also stated: 'I did not undress at all that night. I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not sleep at all.' Is it not likely that the rooms were kept warm enough to undress?
RJP |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 06:50 am | |
Thanks to all for an interesting discussion.
RJ: You may remember a year or so ago--the topic, The Fire in Mary Kelly's Room. We discussed fuel substances at great length ... I don't think Mary could afford coal, and I consider her scavenging stray bits off the street only a slim possibility.
Street urchins made a full time living off trolling the gutters for bits of "treasure" amidst the offal, etc. Doubt there would be much left behind for a person who could only "treasure hunt" in the afternoons--because their lifestyle kept them up all night and sleeping through most of the day. A good case was made by a few posters for the easier possibilities of finding wood in that particular area.
Anyways, welcome to the Abberline was not a Blithering Idiot Gang, aka The Hot Kettlites. You deserve a tee-shirt or a year's supply of small candles for your most excellent remark --- "Otherwise, in the shabby room of Mary Kelly, furnished with empty ginger beer bottles and a broken wine glass, they certainly wouldn't have had any reason to notice a kettle without a spout as anything out of the ordinary."
WOLF: I fail to understand why you make the outrageous remark that Mary was a known prostitute. Just because her neighbors, her girlfriends, her ex-boyfriend Joe Barnett, and Walter Dew, a cop who knew Mary by sight--said she was a prostitute? How dare you drag documented testimony into this discussion? There's any number of perfectly good bizarre theories to pick from, so why are rooting around looking for facts?
;-)
Thanks for the much needed clarity on chemise. I always kinda visualized it as a slip ... The URL below might interest some. Scroll down and click on Victorian Ladies Underwear. Nothing risque--just a nice pic of a vintage chemise.
http://www.lafnmoon.com/
Janice |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 07:38 am | |
Oops! I always mess up on hyperlinks. Try this:
Laughing Moon
Janice |
Author: Diana
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 09:36 pm | |
Thanks for the clarification on the concept of "chemise". I had assumed (wrongly) some kind of peignoir. She still would have been awfully cold in that thing though. Wasn't there some kind of flannel granny gown they would have worn for sleeping in a cold room? Maybe she was in the process of disrobing for a customer and had gotten down to her chemise when she was attacked?
My theory weakens the case for Barnett but doesn't obliterate it. I suppose she might have been desperate enough for her rent money to be willing to service Barnett. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 06:57 am | |
G'day All,
If Mary Kelly was in her undergarment and not her nightdress, I wonder was she preparing to get dressed for 'Lord Mayor's Day'? This would indicate a later TOD.
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Saturday, 27 May 2000 - 03:12 pm | |
Doh! Janice, I deeply apologise. I for the life of me can't figure out what I was thinking with that facts stuff. Brain cramp I suppose. Will try to stear clear of same in future.
Have a good weekend everybody.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 07:29 am | |
G'day,
What is more likely, for an 'in-need-of-money' East-Ender - a late Thursday night dinner, or an early breakfast for someone wanting to get up and set up a stall to sell clothes at the 'Lord Mayor's Day' pageant?
Mary Ann Cox testified to hearing a man leave the court at 6:15 am, "That was too late for the market".
Coroner: "It might have been a policeman".
Mary: "It might have been".
Would a policeman go wandering down the passage to Miller's Court, when thousands of people were preparing for 'pomp and pageantry', outside in Dorset Street?
But wait! Caroline Maxwell saw and spoke to her at 8:30 am on Friday morning. She had only spoke to her "on two occasions", but they were on a first name basis and Caroline knew her well enough to know what time she normally got out of bed: "it was an unusual thing to see her up."
"What, Mary, brings you up so early?"
"Oh Carrie, I do feel so bad. I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again."
At 8:45 am, Maxwell saw her again "talking to a man", but could not give a description of this man. Was this a true sighting of the right woman?
She was probably more interested in her husbands breakfast!
If her first sighting is to be believed, (the face to face one), then the man sneaking out of the court at 6:15, did not kill her at that time. But if he came from Kellys room, she was up and 'servicing' customers at that time.
WHATD'YA THINK!
Leanne! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 28 May 2000 - 05:58 pm | |
Leanne:
It think one strike against Mrs. Maxwell's story might be that she has MJK vomitting at 8 a.m. ('at the same time she pointed to some vomit in the roadway. I saw it.') whereas in Dr. Bond's report he writes:
'In the abdominal cavity was some partly
digested food of fish & potatoes & similar
food was found in the remains of the stomach
attached to the intestines.'
Would MJK be likely to have food in her stomach if she couldn't even keep down a beer?
RJP |
