The burnt clothing

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
According to a Report in The Times[ 12th Nov] it is almost certain that the remains of a rim of a bonnet, and a peice of velvet, were that of Kellys velvet jacket and bonnet, that she often wore.
The report also stated that the police believed that the killer murdered Mary in daylight, and proberly only burnt the above garments because they may have been bloodstained.
I must pose the question.
Why did the police believe they were looking for a murder in daylight, and also come to the conclusion that these clothes were bloodstained.
If one believes Mrs Praters statement to the press, about her meeting with Mjk at the bottom of the passage at 9pm on the 8th, we have her mentioning that kelly was wearing that jacket and bonnet, when going out that evening.
note. she even remarked that she herself did not own such ..
Yet according to Cox , close to midnight when ''allegedly'' she saw Mary with Blotchy she was not wearing those clothes...
Question Why?.
And if the police were correct in their assumption that these garments were bloodstained, we should pose the question. How did they get so, and not other clothing such as the crossover shawl that were found in her room?
Was Mary dressed in them when attacked... proberly not as other garments she would have been wearing would have been splattered.
That leave us with my suggestion that the jacket and bonnet were layed out on the bed, and the theory, mayby to go to the the lord mayors show [ not alien if the police believed daylight] that kelly was killed around 9am, and her killer after indulging in his blood lust, noticed the bloodstained garments, and burnt them in the fire [ which had been lit by kelly earlier, to dry of the jacket, and bonnet that she had worn out in the wet weather a few hours earlier]
Why did he do that?
By allowing kelly to undress down to her chemise before attacking her, it would give the police the impression that she was killed in the night, however the presence of a heavily bloodstained jacket and bonnet, which must have been on the bed at the time of the attack, would have made them suspicious, as to why they were there, and not where her other clothing was, and might indicate a daylight attack.
But what of Cox statement.?
We have Praters account, and the garments[ bloodstained?] which indicates that these were recently worn, so was she mistaken? or not being honest.
What about dear Hutchinson.?
I find it intresting that Mrs Lewis describes the loiterer as Short and stout,
and Maxwell sighting as also[ market porter].
I must pose the question was this man one of the same, and was unable to enter room 13 at 230, because Kelly was still not alone, and he waited until she appeared in the morning.
Lots of questions to answer and debate. its a long post for me, however , I do find the police opinion on T.O.D and the reaon why her 'sunday best' was burnt very intriquing.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

I thought the most prevalent theory relating to the burnt clothing was that the killer needed more light to work in the dark.
I'm not convinced by this age-old hypothesis, besides, how much light would a bonnet give off when other clothes were laid (folded?) on a chair?

There does seem to be something to look into here..

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I admit to being somewhat bewildered by the lack of response to this thread, putting aside my speculations, the press article in question clearly refers to police opinion that this murder occured in daylight, and offers a belief that kellys velvet jacket and bonnet were burnt by the killer, because they were bloodstained.
I posed the question..'Why would kellys killer be concerned about bloodstains?
He hardly sent all of the bed sheets to the laundry before departing....
My speculative answer was, in order for these garments to have been soiled with blood, they would have to have been on the bed itself when Mary was attacked ...
Question. Why didnt the killer want these garments to be made avaliable?
A suggestion.
1] If the jacket and bonnet , regardless where they might have been found in that room, were intact, then the bloodstains would indicate that they were originally on the bed when the victim was stabbed, which in itself would indicate, that it was unlikely that the murder occured during sleeping hours, why would her other clothes be draped around a chair, and her jacket and bonnet be on her bed all night?
The fact is kelly was dressed down to her chemise, the bedroll was folded on the far side of the bed, and the jacket and bonnet must have been nearby.
Does that look like a nightime occurence?
I have always been pro Maxwell, and I am now of the opinion [ via the report] that the police were not convinced that the medical opinion was correct.
As for the bloodstains, there must have been a reason for them to have reached that conclusion, unless of course they had reason to believe he dressed in her jacket and bonnet when doing his devilish work...how sick would that be....
As Wickerman said. 'There does seem to be something to look into here'.
Or is Casebook assuming that this report from the 12th Nov 88, is clearly wrong as it goes against the grain?
Regards Richard.

[celee]

Hi Richard, still chasing the ghost.

First; Ther Ripper would have no reason to care aout blood on Mary's cloths. There was no DNA back then and the whole room was covered in blood or at least enough of the room was covered to explain blood on Mary's cloths

2. I think the newspaper report is wrong

3. I feel that either Joe or Mary, herself, burnt the cloths. I never thought that the Ripper started the fire.

I enjoy your post. You always make me think.

Your friend;
Brad

[Jonnieola]

Elizabeth Prater also heard screams in the night and this was corroborated by Sarah Lewis. Whether the testimony of these two stands up who can tell? Dr. Bond gives the time of death at approximately 1 or 2 am and Dr. Phillips around an hour or two later. I believe Phillips was quoted in The Times on 12th November. I've always believed this was the correct version especially as only the stump of one small candle was found I believe.

As you say Richard, your alternative version is very intriguing.

The only thing that worries me is that the body was already showing signs of rigor mortis.

I'm not as competent on these discussion boards as many of the more experienced posters so I probably shouldn't be adding my two pennerth though!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Brad,
I have been chasing the ''ghost'' for around 48 years , so I am too long in the tooth to call it a day.
I obviously was not implying that the killer was concerned about DNA, or fingerprinting, for obvious reasons.
As for the newspaper 'getting it wrong', this was the Times, [not the Wheeling register], the 'Royalty of british newspapers, infact if one reads the whole article one gets the distinct impression that they . proberly funded by police suspicion that Bond and co were out in their estimate regarding to T.O.D, believed it was ''indeed'' a daylight occurence.
As for Mary herself starting the fire... I agree entirely, her boots were apparently placed near the grate, not much good for drying with a unlit fire.
that bring the case, how can you even consider that she would burn her sunday best?
As for Barnett lighting the fire the question is when, and why. he had a cast iron alibi for the night hours.
As for the Ripper lighting the fire, how considerate of him to place Marys boots close by to dry out.
Regards Richard.

[Jonnieola]

I still can't get past the onset of rigor mortis having set in though.

Jon

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jonnieola,
What you have said is true refering to the cry around 4am, but there is that alternative answer as suggested at the inquest by Mrs Prater.
'Like awakening from a nightmare' especially as the term 'Oh Murder' correspondes rather well to a report from Lottie[ who was then living in kellys room] in 1891/2, to canadian reporter Kit Watkins when she interviewed her in Millers court.
''she[ kelly] had a bad dream that she was ''being murdered'' somewhen during the month of october-early Nov, and although she shrugged it off, it worried her a lot''.
A nightmare occurence is the alternative .
As for the Rigor Mortis... it is still not a complete science now, the body was completely destroyed, and i bet a pound to a penny that educated guesswork played a major part in the doctors opinions.
As for the inexperienced posters angle, I would say you are doing just fine.
Regards Richard.

[Jonnieola]

Cheers for that. Must admit I was apprehensive about posting as everyone seems so knowledgeable. Regards the rigor mortis I understand there were lots of things to be taken into account especially the fire and the broken window.

I believe three hours to commencement and twelve hours to maximum stiffness is the norm but heat sources, especially a fire, can speed up the process.

How the complete butchering of the body affected this process one can only guess.

Perhaps The Ripper wouldn't have needed that much light to work with. It seems he was very used to working in the dark given the circumstances of the other murders.

[kensei]

On the whole idea of Mary having been killed in daylight hours, in the morning with the whole range of bustling activity going on in Dorset Street and especially on the day of the parade, and yet no one saw him leave--? Not one person thought back after the fact to that mysterious stranger they saw walk out of Miller's Court? I just can't buy it. I support the most common theory that Mary was killed around 4 a.m. And as for the fire- well, now my thoughts become a little more dramatic. Take them as you will.

Clearly there was a heavy sexual element to this crime (as to all the Ripper murders). And being indoors, it was the only time the Ripper had the luxury to fully indulge that element the way he wanted to. For that reason, and also for the practical reason of avoiding bloodstains on his clothing, I believe that he disrobed at least partially before committing the mutilations, at least to the point of being shirtless. Of course it's all speculation, but he may have done this before or after killing Mary, he may or may not have pretended to be about to indulge her services as a prostitute, and she may or may not have been fully conscious in the moments before her murder owing to her drunken state. But in a state of undress- well, it was November in the northern hemisphere after all, and so the fire may have been fed by the Ripper by throwing clothing items into it purely to keep warm, as well as for just a tad bit of extra light. Whatever happened in that little room was monstrous and will forever be open to speculation, but those are my thoughts.

[kensei]

An afterthought- any report that Mary Kelly often wore a particular bonnet would seem to be in conflict with the report that she disliked hats of any kind and seldom wore them. There is also Mary's friend Maria Harvey, the launderess who told police she had left a bunch of clothing for safekeeping with Mary, including a bonnet. According to the "Jack the Ripper A to Z" which I just quickly consulted, the only one of those items returned to Mrs. Harvey was the coat that had been used by Mary to block the window. All the rest went up in flames.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard,

Thank you for posing this question or ten...I really like this way of looking at things. I am still contemplating this and am wondering about something myself, perhaps in conjunction with your words. The melted down kettle in that fireplace. What evidence is there that the kettle was melted down on the actual date of the murder? Could it not have been done on a previous occasion?

As regards the fire itself, she had been out in the wet evening and night before. The room would have been cold, due to the broken window. It is logical that she lit the fire to get some warmth. Taking off her wet outer clothers to dry by the fire, boots included, would seem logical. Warming up the room for her and her guest would also seem logical. Laying out her clothes for the morning if she was intending to go to the Lord Mayor's show the next morning is also logical. She would not have burned her own clothes for the obvious reason that she was as poor as a church mouse and could not replace them, that's logical too.

As regards the rigor mortis question, there are a few very good dissertations regarding this on Casebook and it would seem logical to me that she was killed during the morning, not the night before because if the room was cold enough after the fire had gone out, due to the broken window, this would have enhanced the onset of rigor mortis, and it would have been more advanced after 7 hours or so than we are told it was.

A fine piece. Thank you for giving your thoughts about it. Food for thought.

best wishes

Phil

[curious4]

Burnt clothing

What about the possibility that Jack burned his own clothes ? Quite honestly I canīt see him composedly stripping off to keep clean and then going into a frenzied attack. I also agree with the idea that he didnīt need extra light.

Could it be possible that Mrs Maxwell saw and spoke to JTR dressed in Maryīs clothes? As far as I can judge there is no evidence to show that she knew Mary well. A hasty conversation at 8.30 in the morning with someone she took to be Mary, later embellished and with the person she spoke to using her first name. If she did speak to someone, there is a chance that that person said "Oh dearie" and not "Oh Carrie".

Best wishes,
C4

[kensei]

What about the possibility that Jack burned his own clothes ? Quite honestly I canīt see him composedly stripping off to keep clean and then going into a frenzied attack. I also agree with the idea that he didnīt need extra light.

Could it be possible that Mrs Maxwell saw and spoke to JTR dressed in Maryīs clothes? As far as I can judge there is no evidence to show that she knew Mary well. A hasty conversation at 8.30 in the morning with someone she took to be Mary, later embellished and with the person she spoke to using her first name. If she did speak to someone, there is a chance that that person said "Oh dearie" and not "Oh Carrie".

Best wishes,
C4

Well, there is really no reason why Jack had to have stripped down "composedly"- hastily doffing one's clothes in a moment of sexual thrill is common enough. But at the same time, there is no reason why the attack had to be "frenzied." The mutilations were not done like a meat grinder, nor like the work of a surgeon, but in between- like a butcher.

And Jack dressed in Mary's clothes? Good food for thought I suppose, but though eyewitnesses in the other attacks described the killer as being fairly small, they also said he had a rather obvious moustache. That could be a problem.

[Wickerman]

This one murder is perplexing to say the least. I don't have any theories on this one, I'm not even convinced Kelly was a Ripper victim. Too much overkill, too many unanswered questions.

I agree with Celee, the Times reporter must have got something wrong. There is no reason for the killer to burn bloodstained clothes, unless, as ridiculous as this might sound, the clothes belonged to the killer, herself!, whoever she was.
Womens clothing burned in the fire tends to suggest the killer was a woman.

Maria Harvey claimed some clothing she left with Kelly was missing, it was hypothesized that the missing clothes may have ended up in the fire.
Was this clothing really Maria Harvey's?, or is there more to this than meets the eye....?

The alternative is to believe the killer burned whatever material was at hand to create more light to work with.

If these are the only two possibilities, it is not difficult to understand how the second theory gained popularity.



If the concern here is that rigor-mortis had set in 'already' ?, then it might be worth mentioning that the onset of rigor could be connected with an accumulation of lactic acid. Rigor-mortis can also be brought on sooner by stress and physical excertion.
There is a school of thought, still debated, that one connection between ordinary cramp in the living, and rigor in the dead, are both due to a drop in the body's ph level, and/or an accumulation of lactic acid in your system.

Regards, Jon