|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Fire in Kelly's room
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Fire in Kelly's room
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 10:06 pm |        | Hi all.
ok, this is starting to bug me so maybe there's something in it. All research from the A-Z 'cos it's all I have handy. Further Sourcebook research may result.
'McCarthy observed letters from Ireland delivered to Kelly...he thought they were from her mother'.
First, is this 'he saw the postman delivering letters to No. 13'? Or, 'he was in No.13 and he saw letters addressed to Kelly in there'? I thought obviously the former, but if that's the case where would he get the idea that they were from her mother? Did Kelly give him this information? Did he actually see the envelopes?
If he did, he surely would have remarked if they had not been addressed to 'M Kelly' or similar. And in that case we could postulate that 'M Kelly' actually was her real name (if possibly not her birth name).
In that case (and in any scenario where our victim's name bears any resemblance to 'Mary Kelly'), there is the question, where is the family at the funeral?
If she is getting letters from her mother (or whoever), presumably these are addressed "No.13 Millers-Court, Dorset-Street, Spitalfields" or whatever.
The Whitechapel Murders were headline news around the world. I find it hard to believe that someone, somewhere, wouldn't have read "'Nother Horrible Murder in Whitechapel! Last night in Millers-Court, Dorset-Street..." and said "Hey Sheila, isn't that where your Mary is?"
Or am I overestimating the communications infrastructure of the late 19th century?
Regards
Timsta
PS to save you time, the prosaic solution is of course:
McCarthy: "Morning Mary come for the rent. Postman was 'ere, you get a letter or sumfin'?"
MJK: "Yes, from me mother, you nosy old fart." |
Author: Orchetanna
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 06:10 am | | Hi Trimsta
Millers Court, and many other places like it, had a lot of individual families living in it, somehow I cant see the postman going to each individual room,more so as the poorer class seems to be a continuall moving population.
McCarty's shop seems to be an ideal place for the postman to drop off all mail for Millers Court, it would be easy for him to tell the individual they had mail when collecting the rent, or they could pop in the shop and ask especially if they were expecting mail.
McCarthy would then be in a position to know Mary had mail from Ireland but could only guess who it was from.
Anyone know about the postal system in those days?
Anna |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 06:50 am | | | Bob, I can't see any cuts on Kelly's left leg. I have often wondered about the circular mark under her right knee. Rick |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 07:55 am | | Hi All,
Good to know that I'm not the only one who thinks Jack could have 'burnt himself out' at Millers Court. Thanks to all those who state the same.
Leanne, It was just supposition from me about the clothes but I don't see any evidence anywhere that Mary should have sold them. Even if she had had this opportunity I can't see her burning them instead, so back to Jack the fire-maker.
About the post, as far as I know the Royal Mail was and the sucessor is obliged to bring the mail 'to the address'. This would mean and did mean that even in a large block of flats, the poor Postie had and has to trapse from door to door in the block itself. He would then have had to deliver to No. 13. (This is only my own belief, please correct me all those who know better.)
As Kelly's family are reported as living in Wales at this time, the letter(s) from Irland was/were probably from Kelly's soldier brother serving there.
Barnett reported that Kelly's father had once come to London looking for his daughter, whereupon Kelly made herself scarce. We can assume that Father Kelly had a bone to pick with her, if not a wallop or two in baggage, so her family connections were evidently strained badly. This is supported by the family not even coming to her funeral.
Warwick, Kelly had a long cut on the inside of her left leg more or less from knee to ankle. I don't have the references to hand but I am certain that cut is mentioned in the examining Doctor's report.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 07:38 pm | | Hi,
Wasn't it common practice for some shops to act as a sort of "post-box"? You could have your mail sent to the shops address, and then just pick it up from them? Perhaps McCarthy's shop was generally used by the occupants of the Court. Pure speculation here, but it would explain how he might know that Kelly recieved letters from Ireland. Of course, he may just recall her saying she recieved a letter from her family in Ireland one day.
As for who lit the fire, I would think Kelly lit a fire for that night, but not with the clothes. Kelly may have used as fuel gathered coal that fell off coal carts. Since, she was only wearing a light chemise, I would think it would have been too cold in November for her not to have lit a fire. Jack tossed the clothes on the fire, for some reason. Possibly even just to reduce the light for fear of being spotted from outside (trying to smother the fire). Then again, coal fires don't really cast a lot of light so that's probably wrong.
- Jeff |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 07:51 pm | | Bob:
What's the reference for Barnett talking about Kelly's father's visit? I don't recall seeing that one.
I find it hard to believe that family relations would be so strained that you wouldn't go to your own (murdered) daughter's funeral.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: R Court
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 05:59 am | | Hi Jeff, Hi Timsta,
A forwarding address was of course possible, Jeff. I didn't think about including it but it could have been done, although 'why?' would then be the next question. I did think along your lines a time ago, about the blaze being from some other fuel and the clothes burnt later, which would IMHO tend to incriminate Jack still further.
Timsta, I haven't got the references to hand as I am in a pause at work so I can't name them now, but Barnett's report was mentioned by a number of sources, and Kelly's funeral was even put off a day or so in the expectation that Kelly's relatives would come, which they didn't. The report of her funeral was also in various newspapers where the mourners were named.
We remember that Father Kelly was claimed to be Foreman in an ironworks. Now, a Foreman in 1888 was quite different to a Foreman in 2002. He was the BOSS in Bowler hat in 1888 and his word was law. So his standing, and that of his family, would have been higher class (substantiated by remarks from Kelly's aquaintances). Having a black sheep like Mary in the family would be an obvious reason for Father Kelly's crusade, to whip the errant daughter into line and quite possibly march her back home by the ear.
While Barnett had nothing to gain by lying about it except the reputation of being a liar, I believe him, assuming the multiple reports to be correct.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 06:14 am | | Jeff,
Whether a coal fire casts much or little light,depends on the way they are constructed.
Certainly placing clothes atop,especially if damp,would reduce the flammibility.
That there had to be light of some description is beyond doubt,the room small as it was,with covered window and a Court,described by one witness as completely dark,would neccessitate some illumination.
Possible Mary had kept a small fire burning,pity the witnesses of the previous evening didn't touch on this point,but by early morning it would have died to a faint glow if even still alight,and something would need adding to produce flame.So I think your supposition that Jack added the clothing,or began a fire with it is correct,and it was to give light. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 07:27 am | | Thanks Harry,
I've never used coal as a fuel. For some reason, I envision a coal fire as "little flame, lots of red hot coals, lots of heat, but not enough light to brighten a small room". Ingorance on my part.
Given the extent of the mutilations, Jack would need some light. Mitre Square would have some from the nearby lamps, if not a lot, so I suppose Jack didn't need much. Couldn't be pitch black, but he didn't seem to need much and may only have burned the clothes to get a better view of his final work?.
- Jeff |
Author: R Court
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 07:59 am | | Hi all,
My having used (and cleaned, Grrrr!) lots of coal fires as kid (it was the only source of warmth in winter and then only in the main living room)I can say that it could indeed produce lots of light. Coal tars within the burning coal produced coal gas which burnt with a yellow, or even white/blue, flame hissing out of the material like a gas-jet lamp. Later, as the coal reduced, it more or less turned into coke with the chararistics of that material.
Good, some will certainly mention the quality of the coal and that did indeed matter, but even the poorest could and would produce enough light to see.
We did burn wood with the coal, wood being cheaper and stretching the coal considerably but the 'gas-jet' light was still bright. I don't know if Kelly would have burned coal, though. Would coke not have been much cheaper?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 06:47 pm | | Well there you go! Learn something everyday. We used to have a wood fireplace, and that would cast enough light. Sounds like coal would do much the same. The light level didn't have to be high, just sufficient.
- Jeff |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 08:58 pm | | Hi all.
Tully, p.233:
"...McCarthy was in a good position to keep a close eye on what his tenants were up to. All their mail was delivered to his shop..."
I do not know of Tully's source for this information. Any ideas?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 04:48 am | | G'day Timsta,
I looked through old messages, and found that Neil Shelden gives Paul Beggs 'Jack the Ripper, The Uncensored Facts' as a source for the info about Kelly's fathers visit.
Bruce Paleys book 'The Simple Truth', tells 'At some point Kelly's father came to London in search for her but she avoided seeing him possibly out of shame, but perhaps out of resentment, as she had once remarked to a friend that her parents had discarded her." - He gives the source for this as 'Elizabeth Phoenix, 'The Star', 12 November.'
LEANNE |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 05:57 am | | Bob,Jeff,
Many's the night,when everyone had gone to bed,that I would sit in front of what remained of the coal fire,continually poking to get that extra burst of flame,in which small light I would read the weekly comic,or the 'Black Mask' magazine.
It is interesting that a witness speaks of seeing a light in Kelly's room sometime after midnight.That would have been possible with just the sackcloth in place,and a candle or small fire burning.How nice if someone,at the time,had stated this was the normal covering,and light normally shone through.It would lend strength to the idea that the killer added the coat.
From my own remembrance,when I was young and poverty prevalent,sacking or light curtains was by no means a rareity,but it was sufficient to mask anything but the strongest light,and people properly conducting themselves,had no fear of peeping toms.No,there is no evidence that Mary took customers to her room,but if she did I would expect a more substantial covering than sackcloth. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 06:01 am | | Bob,Jeff,
Many's the night,when everyone had gone to bed,that I would sit in front of what remained of the coal fire,continually poking to get that extra burst of flame,in which small light I would read the weekly comic,or the 'Black Mask' magazine.
It is interesting that a witness speaks of seeing a light in Kelly's room sometime after midnight.That would have been possible with just the sackcloth in place,and a candle or small fire burning.How nice if someone,at the time,had stated this was the normal covering,and light normally shone through.It would lend strength to the idea that the killer added the coat.
From my own remembrance,when I was young and poverty prevalent,sacking or light curtains was by no means a rareity,but it was sufficient to mask anything but the strongest light,and people properly conducting themselves,had no fear of peeping toms.No,there is no evidence that Mary took customers to her room,but if she did I would expect a more substantial covering than sackcloth. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 06:44 am | | Harry,
The coat was left by a friend of Mary's, and I have this feeling that it was noted as the only "curtain" over the broken window. I'm not sure if this memory comes from a contemporary source of it was something we discussed on the boards at one time though. If it was the only curtain, I would think Mary hung it there to both help keep out the draft (heavier than cloth so it would keep any breeze down) and to provide privacy.
She is reported by two witnesses as taking two customers back to her room that night. One if you don't believe Hutchenson (sp?). So it does look like she used her room to service clients.
And again, thanks for more information on the coal fire light. Since you could read by the remains of a coal fire, albeit by helping it along a bit, if it was freshly stoked then there would be enough light for Jack to work by. Perhaps the clothes were added after what remained of her supply was burnt.
Of course, we don't know it was coal that was the fuel. There's no reference to a coal bucket being in her room, for instance, but neither is there reference to any wood supply either. Still, since she had the kettle, it's safe to assume she did at times have some sort of fire. What's important though is that whether it was coal or wood, either fuel could cast enough light for Jack to do what he did.
- Jeff |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 11:46 am | | Hi Harry, Hi Jeff,
The light reported in the room has led me to assume that at least some fire burned before Kelly went out again after the blotchy-faced client had been serviced. We can assume that the fire would likely have been used later, too, stocked up if not re-lit.
In a contemporary photo of 13, Millers Court, there appears to be a white curtain hanging in the left window, just visable inside the frame. If the right window also possesed such a luxury item, only requiring the pilot coat to stop draughts, escapes my knowledge. I mention it only because we hear of the coat doubling as curtain, but no reference to the real left one.
Was this curtain so common-place an article that it merited no reference, or was it a later addition?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 06:58 pm | | Bob,
Good point. I suppose a curtain would be considered common place. The room was "furnished", so McCarthy probably had cheap curtains on the windows. So some common items may not have been described.
And I don't doubt that Mary had a fire. As you say, there was a light spotted earlier. Could have been her candle, but I would think that in Nov. a fire would be necessary to ward off the cold.
Earlier, I wasn't sure if a coal fire would cast enough light. I've learned since then that it would. I can't see Mary burning her own clothes (she would pawn them first), so Jack must have burnt them in the fire that Mary built. Hmmmm, must is always a dangerous word in this case.
- Jeff |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 08:59 pm | | Just to clarify the extract from Paley’s 'Simple Truth,' posted by Leanne; the mention of Kelly’s father’s visit to London is attributed to Barnett in the Star, 12 Nov. 1888. The same paper later reports the claim by Phoenix that Kelly had been discarded by her parents.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 11:37 pm | | Alex, I cannot wait for your Twinkler site. How's it going?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 11:48 pm | | - sorry double post feel free to delete -
Alex, I cannot wait for your Twinkler site. How's it going?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 04:22 am | | Hi Jeff,
Mary's clothes weren't burnt as far as I know, but 'lay neatly folded on a chair'. The clothes burnt seemed to belong to Maria Harvey, but as in an earlier discussion, it is still likely that Jack burnt them. Assuming them to be Maria's property, we could assume that Mary would not have destroyed them and risk a row with Maria.
Even if, as has been suggested, Maria gave the clothes to Mary to clear some debt, then Mary would indeed have popped them, not burnt them. Interesting is that Jack (if he) didn't burn Mary's togs. Anyone have ideas?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 05:20 am | | Bob,Jeff,
In the AtoZ, reference Thomas Bowyer,states that unable to get an answer or open the spring locked door he pulled back the coat and curtain hanging behind the broken window pane and saw the mutilated body on the bed.So it appears both were hanging there,and my speaking of it being sackcloth is in error,though from memory I believed I had read it was.
Still it is interesting to visualise what the condition of light was in the room,with and without illumination,and it is one aspect of the case that most of us can try and duplicate.
A room of equl size,with perhaps a small gas or electric heater to simulate a red glowing fire,and a candle or two to show flame.Not exact but near enough to give an idea of what conditions might have been like.
Most important,what actions would one take on entering a room that was devoid of light,especially with company present.Because these things happened,if Kelly did indeed take someone to her room.
And what if a person entered that same dark room while she lay abed.What would his actions be.What would be faced once the door was closed,and how could the problems of darkness be overcome,so that a woman is subdued,killed and mutilated.
It happened ,but how,and of course the fire played a part.I have some ideas,and I would be interested in other peoples reasoning. |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 06:07 am | | Hi Timsta
The Twinkler site’s going nowhere fast at the moment, I’m afraid. A couple of venerable veterans of this place made me an offer I couldn’t refuse, and we are currently considering our options.
If the Star site doesn’t go ahead, however, transcripts of Lloyds Weekly, or the Pall Mall Gazette will be made available instead, although these are going to take a bit longer to prepare.
Sorry for interrupting, Bob, Harry, Jeff.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 06:20 am | | Hi Harry,
I've not heard of the bit about Bowyer pushing coat AND curtain aside (or I've forgotten it). Thanks, it answers my previous question.
About going in a darkend room with company, in 1888 it would have been much more usual than today to do that, having to light candle, or gas- or oil-lamp first. As kid I lived with no electricity and evenings were dark but cosey with fire or oil-lamp. I can even remember how uncomfortable it was in the blinding light of an electric lamp as we did finally get connected to the mains. I think that was about 1956.
Hi Alex,
You're welcome.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 01:44 am | | Bob, Harry,
Bob,
You're right. I should have qualified the owner of the clothes better. Since the reports are ambiguous about whether or not Mary's clothes were folded, etc. and I keep lazily falling into the habit of calling them "Mary's clothes", when I should say "Someone's clothes were burnt". I'll have to dig out my reference books and actually do some work!
Harry,
So there's at least one report of both a curtain and the coat. That does sound the most likely as I would think that a furnished room would have some sort of curtains over the bedroom window, even if they weren't expensive ones.
- Jeff |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 05:55 am | | Bob,Jeff,
I am old enough to recall and experience light by lamp,candle,gas and of course electric,and I mean experience as the main source of illumination.There were on occasions,when the meter ran out,and no money to replenish it,also firelight.
Your point Bob,about the means of light after entering the room,and especially in Kelly's case,is what would be the means of obtaining it.
Assuming,as I think is most logical,she entered first,wouldn't she go for the candle and light it.
It is hard for me to believe,if she entered with a customer,all activity was conducted in darkness.
There was after all,light after she returned with the twelve o'clock companion.
The problem about the candle is this.If she did light it,and the killer was with her at that moment,why was the fire neccessary.He would have a good source of light,without the need of fire.
On the other hand,if someone came in unannounced after she had retired to bed,he would be stymied by the blackness,perhaps strike a match,see the clothing and fireplace,and miss the candle.
Now these ideas of mine are of course imaginative,but are formulated by innumerable occasions of entering dark dwellings.I expec,that all posters have faced similar situations,so perhaps some may like to speculate what might have happened from the time Kelly's door was pushed open.Was there a need for light or was everything accomplished in darkness,and if there was light how and when was it activated.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 01:05 pm | | Hi, Harry, Jeff, Bob, and Alex:
You might be right that, as stated in A to Z, the coat and curtain were pushed aside by Bowyer to inside and thus see the body on the bed, although my impression had been that the coat was put up over the broken window because there was no curtain. Or else could the coat have been put up in addition to the curtain for added warmth to keep the cold out once the window was broken?
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 01:43 pm | | Harry,
I would think that Mary had a fire going earlier in the evening. She would go out to get clients, but the fire would be lit to keep the room warm for her own comfort; she's comming back one way or the other after all.
So, the fireplace, even if not a roaring fire, would give "Jack" enough light, and on the assumption he's been invited back to her place, the opertunity, to get Kelly onto the bed and to both remove his outerwear, get his knife, while she undresses and gets into bed.
She wouldn't need to light the candle if there's enough light to navigate the room to the bed. After that, she's not expecting him to really need to see. Jack may decide otherwise, but Kelly's thoughts weren't about what eventuated, she was thinking things were otherwise.
That's my take on things, anyway. I used to be worried that a coal fire wouldn't fit that notion, but apparently a coal fire would give more than enough light. A coal fire would even give Jack enough light to do most of what he did. The "extra needed light" could have come from the clothes, especially if his missed the candle.
Just some possibilities.
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 22 August 2002 - 01:51 pm | | Chris,
If you have a broken window, and can't get it fixed (no money and the landlord won't do it) then blocking it with a coat would be one way to cut down on the draft. Over the broken window seems like a "natural" place to hang such an item to me. Even if for no other reason than it works as a better curtain by keeping more "morning light" out. Given Kelly's life-style, I would hazard a guess she wasn't a morning person.
- Jeff |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 23 August 2002 - 05:20 am | | Jeff,
Your explanation is quite sound,and maybe if we accept Hutchinson''story of a companion at 2A.M a possibly correct one.
Against it ,I think,is that Kelly's circumstances as regards finance,might make her sparing with the use of fuel,and the warmth of a bed a more economic proposition than keeping a fire going through the night.Added to that is the influence of drink,and it was reported she was well under the influence that night.Alcohol does tend to produce its own warmth in most people,and also a tendency to ignore other peoples comfort.
It was also reported,by the woman Cox I believe,that light was obseved in the room between 12 and 1a.m.,which might lead one to guess that the coat was not against the window at that time.A candle or firelight,in my opinion,would not have had sufficient strengh to show through both curtain and coat.Still its debateable,and there is not enough detailed information to point one way or the other.
As to the murder of Kelly.I'll make a comment that I do not believe has been put forward before.It is that the location of her death,was the most isolated of the five canonical victims.
That i'm sure will bring some comment.Again,and its only an opinion,it also points in the direction of certain people,and perhaps not morethan two at the most.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 23 August 2002 - 05:27 am | | Chris,All,
Regards reference to both curtain and coat,see Jack The Ripper AtoZ,page 35 underBowyer,Thomas,(Indian Harry).
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 06 September 2002 - 06:23 am | | One observation regarding the fire in Kelly's room,and time of death.We have Mrs Maxwell and at least one other person giving evidence that Kelly was alive as late as 9.30A.M.She then meets her killer,returns with him to her room,is killed and mutilated.At some time the killer lights a fire and burns some clothing.Then sometime before 10.45 the killer departs.
At 10.45 Thomas Bowyer pushes aside the covering over the window and sees the body.In quick succession other people look through the window,some who are police officers trained in observation.
Now none of these persons,then or later, make any comments about a fire.A warm fireplace and ashes are mentioned,but nothing else.
Now it appears to me that had the fire been of recent origin,those looking through the window would have observed something.A small flame,a dying ember or a wisp of smoke.All would have been noticeable.The fireplace would have been to the left of the window and not more than ten feet from it.The most noticible item,before eyes became accustomed to the gloom of the interior,would have been flame or ember,and movement,if only of smoke,easily discernable.
So if death occured after 9.30A.M. it is my opinion that the fire was not lit at that time,and was unconnected with the murder.If however the fire played the part of illumination or destruction of clothing during or immediately after the killing,then death took place much earlier that morning and Maxwell and others were in error. |
|
|
|
|
