Did the killer burn his hat?

[Observer]

Hi Sam

You don't - you make it from coal or wood. Afterwards, you can throw clothing on it if you like.

I don't think it's mooted anywhere that the fire was fuelled solely by clothing.

There can be no doubt that the killer tried to use clothing to fuel the fire, and there may well have been coal or wood to accelerate the burning of the ckothes, but cloth tends to smoulder rather than burn. I can't see him gainining any benefit (light wise) from the burning of the clothes.

But irrelevent really for he burnt those clothes, regardless of the light they gave off.

all the best

Observer

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
When discussing the burning of clothing, and the motive behind it, I will include a couple of alternative views.
The lighting of the fire was intended to state a point that the killer carried out this murder during the hours of darkness in order that he could see his handy work... when in fact the murder occured in daylight, this would have given a night time alibi strength would it not?.[ Note also the body was in bed in a undergarment]
Also if my above scenerio is absurd, how about the killer lighting the fire to signify hell, which he was sending MJK in his own twisted mind.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

I do know that you have also voiced the opinion that the killer neednt have required much light, and that perhaps a low fire, burning dung as fuel, would have been adequate. Cant have it both ways Sam

I'm, not, Mike. Groping for a kidney and cutting the twangy bits that connected it to the bladder, abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava is one thing - cutting strips of intercostal muscle from between several ribs and filleting a woman's thighs and undercarriage requires a degree more care and control.

[Sam Flynn]

If the articles were not burned for light, as it seems is supported by their partial survival, then perhaps they were there to add additional heat....which by itself can ignite into flame and destroy items like paper.

Paper burns better than cloth - so why not just cut out the unnecessary "haberdasher's bonfire" and burn any incriminating letters direct?

[Observer]

I'm, not, Mike. Groping for a kidney and cutting the twangy bits that connected it to the bladder, abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava is one thing - cutting strips of intercostal muscle from between several ribs and filleting a woman's thighs and undercarriage requires a degree more care and control.

Thats true, there must of been some light in the room to have performed those mutilations

all the best

Observer

[Blackkat]

Wasnt' there a candle found "half burned" and the gas lamp would it have provided any light? If the door wasn't in perfect alignment even closed (gaps etc from being old or worn) light could come in.

I can see the eyes rolling now but this thread "Did the killer burn his hat?" I think he'd just be lucky he didn't burn his bum.

[Sam Flynn]

Wasnt' there a candle found "half burned" and the gas lamp would it have provided any light? If the door wasn't in perfect alignment even closed (gaps etc from being old or worn) light could come in.

A "piece of candle" was indeed found, Kat. As to the door, any light coming through would have been parallel to the bed. Furthermore, any gaslight beams that may have leeched into the room would have been very narrow and faint. Assuming the lamp was still lit at that time of night, of course - McCarthy may have implemented a "lights-out" policy after a certain hour.

[Mrsperfect]

Ellen Bury's Murder

I don't see this as a MJK question at all. I know that remnants of women's clothing were found in Ellen Bury's home, after William Bury murderered his wife. Since he alone occupied the home, (after the incident), we might assume that he did it. In fact he burnt quite a lot of things belonging to his wife.

I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate that the murderer may have been trapped in MJK's room for some time, (after the deed) and wanted to keep warm. He may have noticed people outside and waited until it was quiet. Since there seems to be no reason to burn the clothing, we can only guess that perhaps he didn't see the candle, (that was found with the discovery of the body).

Maybe he wanted to get rid of any evidence that may be found, if (for example) he bought MJK a new hat, this might have triggered a memory, with a shopkeeper for example.

I don't think Mary would have kept a kettle that was in such a condition, had it been destroyed prior to her death. I think the light from the fire would have assisted the job he came to do.

Regards

Eileen

[perrymason]

I can't see why that shouldn't have been the case, Mike. Perhaps the killer wanted a little more light by which to guide his handiwork? Evisceration of such extent and intricacy would not have been easy by candle-light alone, and practically impossible in darkness.

.....and yet this same killer took out a uterus with a "single swoop of the knife", in marginal natural light as dawn approached.

I do get your point Sam, and I happen to agree he needed some assistance in that room. For me that could easily be dealt with by introduction of a man known to Mary and that room. A "bit" of candle means some was burned at some point...we dont know when,...but it may have been enough. And the killer may have thought the hat and velvet skirt he burned were Marys.....perhaps gifts she had recently received.

Sam, I got out of Data Security and Technology after 25 plus years a few years back....and took up learning Construction. I loved the fact that it is an inexact science. Its not dry bits and bytes that tell the story here, its how you adapt when you discover that the door in the blueprint that worked fine, blocks the closet when hung on the left....that kind of thing. Logical creativity steps in.

We dont know that the Ripper reached in and grabbed what he could in the outdoor killings, there is no way to ever know if he even touched the uterus before it was cut free, or whether that targeted cut was intentional. What we have, is inexact. Science cant tell you what he wanted, and what he did intentionally outdoors, nor can it adequately explain how he accomplished the free-for-all in room 13 as far as lighting was concerned.

But a man known by Mary, and knowing that room would have a distinct advantage over a strange interloper in that regard.

Since Ive drifted, let me say that there is no evidence to suggest that a mans hat was in the ashes, therefore my answer thread wise is no.

But the question of the fire, and how large it was, or was not, is I believe some critical evidence in this case. A bright fire would have shone through muslin curtains for one.....and in 10 x 10 surroundings without furniture, temperature had to be a consideration.

Best regards Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

.....and yet this same killer took out a uterus with a "single swoop of the knife", in marginal natural light as dawn approached.

The natural light would hardly have been marginal when he killed Annie Chapman, in fact there was only marginally less light at rear of 29 Hanbury Street as there would have been with the fire lit in Miller's Court.

BTW (and off-topic), contrary to the description, that "sweep of the knife" was far from clean. Let's not perpetuate the rather unhelpful tradition of Bagsterian hyperbole!

[perrymason]

The natural light would hardly have been marginal when he killed Annie Chapman, in fact there was only marginally less light at rear of 29 Hanbury Street as there would have been with the fire lit in Miller's Court.

BTW (and off-topic), contrary to the description, that "sweep of the knife" was far from clean. Let's not perpetuate the rather unhelpful tradition of Bagsterian hyperbole!

Sam,

I wont belabour it here, but the medical opinion on Annie Chapmans killer was not restricted to The partial Zorro sweep, it was suggested the organ, the uterus, was the intended target. And it was not daylight, and there was I believe no working gaslamp in that yard.

Inexactly....I think a candle lit 10 x 10 would be much easier on the eyes.

But for another thread..

Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Inexactly....I think a candle lit 10 x 10 would be much easier on the eyes.

...and a slip with an extremely sharp instrument whilst cutting out narrow strips of intercostal muscle, carving a thigh to the bone or excavating the upper abdomen and thorax in mere candlelight would not have been easy on the person wielding the knife.

[perrymason]

I think its safe to say that the Millers Court killer indulged in dangerous habits Sam, to describe what was done in surgical context, I think misleads. The man who killed in room 13 needed no skill at all, nor showed any.

That is debatable with other victims.

Im out for the night....nice to catch you Sam.

[Blackkat]

So - if people around Mary's room were accustomed to seeing a glow from the fireplace they wouldn't have thought much about a fire going. I'm not sure if the killer would need more than candlelight - I do agree that it may take more than candlelight to see clearly what he was doing (rather that he could see) but I don't think he did the mutilating with "precision"

I don't think the fire was blazing really bright, but then again I'm not quite caught up with all the different theories going on here about the fireplace so forgive me if I sound ignorant. In some of this I'm sure I am. With a fire and and candlelight I have no doubt he could do what was done. I've always been curious about how he killed MJK without fear someone would have came to the door or window. It's risky, really risky. That's why I think there didn't have to be a great amount of light, he clearly seemed to be in a frenzy.

[Robert]

From the PMG Nov 12th :

The jury being quite satisfied we marched through the churchyard again, and pushed our way through the crowd which followed us up the Commercial-road, and into Dorset-street. Here another crowd held possession of the field, trowy women, with babies in their arms, drunken men recovering from their orgies, and a whole regiment of children, all open-mouthed and commenting on the jury. The entrance to the court was held by a couple of policemen, and it was so narrow that we could pass up in single file. It was only about three yards long, and then we were at the door which is numbered 13. The two windows which look into the little court were boarded up, and had apparently been newly whitewashed. From the windows above a girl looked down upon us quite composedly, and several pots of beer were brought in during our stay to comfort the denizens of the court. At last the key was procured, and the room was surveyed in batches. The inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, bloodstained bed, and repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the bloodstains on the wall, and point with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the mattress. The little table was still on the left of the bedstead, which occupied the larger portion of the room. A farthing dip in a bottle did not serve to illuminate the fearful gloom, but I was able to see what a wretched hole the poor murdered woman called "home". The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings, one, "The Fisherman's Widow", stuck over the mantelpiece: while in the corner was an open cupboard, containing a few bits of pottery, some ginger-beer bottles, and a bit of bread on a plate. The rent was 4s. a week. In twenty minutes the jury filed out again and marched back, still accompanied by a curious crowd, to the Town Hall, and began their very simple labours under the direction of Dr Macdonald, the member for the Scotch Crofters.

So Abberline found a farthing dip sufficient. Whether the door was left open and if so, how much light would have entered the room, I don't know.