May 1996
In keeping with the Mary Kelly murder (if that was indeed who was murdered), much debate has arisen over the importance of the "fire" begun in her room, supposedly by Jack the Ripper himself. Whatever it was, it was hot enough to melt part of the kettle Kelly had in the fireplace. Is this of any significance? Why?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:02:35 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
The fire producing that much heat does make you wonder what the hell was burned that night. I think it can be taken for granted that the killer burnt his clothes. They must have been fairly bloody, no? I don't see how anyone could cut up someone like that without getting pretty wet in the process. There were other men's clothes in the room. Jack could have taken care of business then tossed all his stuff in the fireplace, lit it up, then put on some clean clothes, kissed Mary goodnight, and left. Look at it this way, here's this guy, he's killed at least 3 and possibly 4 women out in the street. He didn't have much time with the other girls. He's in plain site, the cops are looking for him everywhere. He's in a bit of a rush. It's across the throat, up the middle, throw guts over shoulder, take something for lunch, and run like hell. Now this time he's inside. No one's going to see him. He's got all night. The cutting done to Kelly took a couple of hours. The other killings probably took only a few minutes. For this girl he's taking his time. Maybe he burned something to give him light, maybe he was a little cold, after all, it's November in London. Not a pleasant time of year to be in the old city. Ultimately, does it really matter what was burned? What does everyone think?
2.
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:46:54 EST
From: Tom Saupe
Michael Rogers suggests that the fire in Mary Jane Kelly's grate was built by the Ripper and fueled by his clothes. Although I agree with the fact that the killer built the fire, I have doubt's as to whether the clothes burned belonged to him.
Just prior to the murder Kelly had been living with another prostitute named Mrs. Harvey. This was one of the reasons Barnett gave for moving out, that she shared her rooms with other prostitutes and that it was their influence which put Mary Jane back on the streets. Mrs. Harvey gave evidence that she had left clothing in Mary Jane's room. It consisted of a hat, jacket (probably the one used as a curtain on the window), two men's shirts, a boy's shirt and a child's petticoat. As these items were missing, except the jacket, she and the police assumed that those were the clothes that were burnt.
Also, the fire was so hot that it melted the spout on a metal kettle near by. I doubt that blood soaked (wet) clothing could produce a fire that hot. Wet rags produce a great deal of smoke and little heat.
I think I can offer another scenario. remember that it was cold that night. Mary Ann Cox followed Mary Jane and a man back into Miller's court that night. Cox said she was returning home (after having been soliciting trade on Commercial Street) becuase she was cold and wanted to warm herself.
The cutting and blood pattern on the sheet on the bed gives evidence that it was thrown over Mary Jane's face prior to the opening of the attack and that the first cut was probably made through the sheet. After that, the evidence suggests that the body was pulled from one side of the bed to the other. This may suggest that the Ripper was actually lying beside her at some point, then flinging the sheet over her face and commencing the attack. (The fact that she may not have been stragled first, like the other victims, may also explain the faint cry of "murder" heard by others in the court that night.)
With this hypothosis in mind it may be likely that the murder was himself undressed partially or even nude. Now with the time he has never had before, time in which to labor over his work, the rush of adrenaline and the excitement along with a cold night causes him to light a fire for warmth. Harvey's clothes are handy and will do the job well.
They appear to be the only clothes found missing when the grate is investigated. Barnett never mentions clothes missing, Kelly's were still neatly folded over a chair. I think the Ripper left in his own clothes which were free of bloodstains because he never had them on while he was working.
3.
Date: Sun, 26 May 96 12:22:33 -0700
From: Paul Emmitt
I've always mistrusted the fire--made from bloody/damp clothing,that no one noticed in the middle of the night--hot enough to burn a kettle theory. How can one tell, after the fact, when a kettle was melted? Maybe it melted three fires ago. And for that matter, how can one tell, after the fact, how hot a fire was? I imagine, but I'd really like advice on this, that one evaluates the temperature of both the room and the ashes in relation to the time of the fire. So if you would misjudge the time of the fire, your calculation of its intesity would be inaccurate. Walter Dew's comment that when the polce entered Kelly's room it was "stifling" only strengthens my suspicion that the fire was later, not hotter. The fire, then, becomes important because it begins to suggest that perhaps the chronology of that night hasn't been completely understood.
Back to Previous Topics for Debate
Back to the Conference Main Page