The fire in the grate...a new theory?

[Magpie]

Is it possible that the fire in the grate was stoked up by the Ripper just prior to his leaving so that if someone were to look through the window before dawn they would be able to see his handiwork?

It's hard not to see the crime scene as a very deliberate composition, and as any artist will tell you, proper illumination is vital to any work. I think that the Ripper wanted the discovery of the body to hold the maximum shock value, and it would be a disappointment to him if someone were to look into or enter Kelly's room in the couple of hours after his departure and before sunrise without witnessing the full horror of his deeds.

Has this been mooted before?

[How Brown]

Kev:

I haven't heard of it before. Sounds reasonable or feasible to me.

A theatrical Ripper,eh? Good idea, Magpie.

[Kim Ross]

Gday. I find it difficult to believe that JTR did that. I'm still not so sure that the fire was burning the night MJK was murdered.

Cheers

[Bob Hinton]

Dear Magpie

The problem with that theory is that you come up against pure physics. To cast any sort of illumination you would need a fuel that would burn with a preponderance of flame, such as wood or coal. The problem with that is that a fire that burned that brightly would quickly exhaust it’s fuel and is unlikely to have still retained any warmth until the following afternoon.

We know the remains in the fireplace were still warm on Friday afternoon, this means that you are looking for a fuel that burns slowly, such as wool or other types of clothing. We know that remains of clothing could still be identified in the grate when examined at that time. Therefore the most likely conclusion is that MJK lit a fire comprising of some old clothes she had lying around. This was in an attempt to give a bit of warmth to a very cold room. This fire smouldered throughout the morning and was still warm when examined.

I realise that it is possibly inaccurate, but there is an illustration in one of the papers that shows MJK’s shoes in front of the fire. This would be a completely logical thing to find if she had placed them there to dry out.

Of course this means that the fire did not melt the spout off the kettle, at least not that night.

[Scott Nelson]

The "scare" factor with the flames in the fireplace was dealt with below (#23 - HEARTH). The follow-up discussion covered the possibility that the Ripper was so overcome with his sense of self-importance or naive that he didn't realize the fire would shortly die down to a smoulder.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html

[Chris G.]

The "scare" factor with the flames in the fireplace was dealt with below (#23 - HEARTH). The follow-up discussion covered the possibility that the Ripper was so overcome with his sense of self-importance or naive that he didn't realize the fire would shortly die down to a smoulder.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html

To quote from 23. "Purposes of the Change in Modus Operandi, Miller’s Court - HEARTH" in David Radka's "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"

"HEARTH: A fuse for the psychopath’s time bomb, to give him a few moments to make his escape. The purpose of cramming the hearth full of garments he found in the room was to signal local sister prostitutes, drawing one or more of them to Kelly’s room by the intended leaping flames and (possibly) the whistling of the teapot."

Yes while it is always possible that the Ripper lit the fire to highlight his handiwork, as it were, but the idea that he did that would be contrary to his need to escape undetected. So the possibility remains, as Bob Hinton has said, that MJK lit the fire for warmth on a cold night, or else the Ripper did it for a similar reason, though probably not to showcase his handiwork. If he worked naked in doing the majority of the mutilations, as might have been the case with an indoors job as opposed to his murder-mutilations on the streets or courts of Whitechapel, he might have wanted the fire to keep warm while doing his work.

Chris

[Robert Linford]

Hi Bob

If it's the same illustration that I'm thinking of, she would have put her shoes in front of the fire to dry out, but not her clothes, which seems odd.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Come, Chris, your imagination runs riot here with that of the ilk of Colin Wilson and co.
A naked Jack the Ripper!
What fertile and fetid concept.
Just like Wilson you attempt to introduce a degree of sexuality here which only exists in the closed minds of male writers on this subject.
If you are going to kill someone, then just make sure you got your clothes on, as it does help to elude capture by the forces of law and order.
One can imagine the local butcher as you ask him for a slice of beef.
'Just gotta take me clothes off, mate, messy old job this. Don't want to stain me apron.'

[Robert Linford]

Considering the sharpness of Jack's knife, he'd have felt safer fully clothed, I feel. There's many a slip 'twixt cut and rip.

[How Brown]

All this talk of nekkidness...got me to thinkin' !

How about a thread on whether we believe that the Ripper was nude or clothed in Millers Court?

This is somewhat intriguing.

[Chris G.]

Come, Chris, your imagination runs riot here with that of the ilk of Colin Wilson and co.
A naked Jack the Ripper!
What fertile and fetid concept.
Just like Wilson you attempt to introduce a degree of sexuality here which only exists in the closed minds of male writers on this subject.
If you are going to kill someone, then just make sure you got your clothes on, as it does help to elude capture by the forces of law and order.
One can imagine the local butcher as you ask him for a slice of beef.
'Just gotta take me clothes off, mate, messy old job this. Don't want to stain me apron.'


Not trying to be kinky, AP, old bean. There was a TV movie about Lizzie Borden some years ago that showed the actress Elizabeth Montgomery in the part of Lizzie committing the axe murders naked (subtly shown of course, being a TV movie). It just occurs to me that it could have been a viable means for Jack to have committed the extensive mutilations without covering his clothes in gore. Of course the notion offends those who think of the Ripper with the full Victorian gent's rig of cloak and top hat, etc. Not that I am saying you have that idea of the Ripper, just that this type of approach is a different way of looking at the case, casting aside that sort of stereotype.

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Fair enough, Chris, but I have just discovered an even more remarkable method of making bloodstains disappear from your clothing, employed by one notorious murderer of the LVP. This chap used to cover himself in whitewash.
Just a tired painter and decorator on his way home in Whitechapel after a long day.
'Blimey mate!' exclaims constable on beat. 'You got yourself in a right state there all right!'
'Cor blimey, governor, that were a right sod of a job! I'll be glad to get home and get cleaned up,' says murderer. 'I could kill for a pint of porter, let me tell you!'
'Good night, mate, have one on me,' sighs the constable.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Chris

Rather than light the fire because he was cold after he'd taken off his clothes, you'd have thought he'd have simply put his clothes on again instead.

And, as long as that fire wasn't going, it would have been fairly safe to don the pilot coat, if he really felt cold.

Robert