How did he do it?

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Fisherman;178652]Ruby:

"I think that the folded clothes indicate that Mary took her clothes off alone"

...in a "heavily intoxicated" state? Is that how people who are drunken shitfaced treat their clothes when going to bed?

The best,
Fisherman

[/QUOTE]

Now that is an interesting comment, Fish.

I was convinced that I would be jumped on and whupped for even suggesting that we don't actually know that it was Mary who folded her own clothes -and it could have been her killer, for all we know.

1. -I think that there is little doubt that Mary was "shitfaced" drunk
witness statements point to it, and it fits with the idea that we get of her lifestyle.

2.- certainly I'd scatter my clothes on the floor, if I was drunk. However Mary is reported to have always had a clean apron, and she might have been a naturally clean and tidy person who had had 'folding clothes' drummed into her. It raises a vague question as to whether she had been sent away to school at some point -didn't she draw ? Or am I imagining this ? it is possible that she did come from a slightly better off family..as she claimed.

3. Of course, we know that her killer did interest himself in the clothing in the room..if only to burn. Again -for all we know- the murder might have suffered from OCD (especially if he'd been institutionalised) and might not have been comfortable with clothes lying about the room. There would be an argument that he was very 'tidy' in his butchery -not to get covered in blood -and that he arranged the flesh and organs in a neat theatrical way.

We can't know -but I like the comment.

[Ben]

a) the neatly folded clothes. I doubt that MJK would strip off for a client - even in her own room. Too time-consuming, unnecessary and too much effort if she intended to go out again that night. Recall, Victorian women's clothes were not easy to remove and put on again;

b) secondly, I don't think MJK would have fallen asleep in the presence of someone she did not know - and all the evidence I have seen suggests that is what she did.

I agree with both these observations, Phil, which is why I said that I don't think the client-as-killer explanation is the best one.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Sorry Ben, if I mis-read your post. Looking again, I see what you meant.

It was the first phrase:

It is indeed a "fair guess" that Kelly brought home her killer who was then posing as a client...

that threw me. I missed the qualifier.

Rubyretro

When you say:

Of course, we know that her killer did interest himself in the clothing in the room..if only to burn...

What do you base that on. Do we have PROOF that the killer burned the clothing, or is that just a surmise? Most (if not all) of it belonged to Maria Harvey as I recall, so it is not impossible that MJK was the culprit. It may be likely, but to say "we know"!!

Phil

[Abby Normal]

[

Hi Ruby
I guess this is a question for all:

How do we know the folded clothes were Mary's?

And if they were hers, how do we know it was the ones she was wearing that night?

[Sally]

Drunk

I think it is quite possible to be quite drunk and still manage to function quite normally - for an habitual drinker.

There are degrees of drunk. Kelly could have been considerably drunk (resisting saying shitfaced. Oops.) and still folded her clothes; particularly if this was something she was in the habit of doing.

And, whilst it may be common in a drunken state to chuck our threads on the floor before crashing these days I can't help but think that it might have been considerably less hygenic in those days - and troublesome. No washing machines.

[Abby Normal]

I think it is quite possible to be quite drunk and still manage to function quite normally - for an habitual drinker.

There are degrees of drunk. Kelly could have been considerably drunk (resisting saying shitfaced. Oops.) and still folded her clothes; particularly if this was something she was in the habit of doing.

And, whilst it may be common in a drunken state to chuck our threads on the floor before crashing these days I can't help but think that it might have been considerably less hygenic in those days - and troublesome. No washing machines.

Hi Sally

I agree. Especially since people did not own the amount of clothes we do today-so maybe they were alot more careful with them.

But I ask:

How do we know the folded clothes were Mary's?

And if they were hers, how do we know it was the ones she was wearing that night?

[Rubyretro]

Hi Abby -I think that we can safely assume that the folded clothes were Mary's, because all the witnesses were taken to the room in Miller's Court and shown the contents.

for example Maria Harvey listed the clothes that she had left with Mary "
I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girls white petticoat.
[Coroner] Have you seen any of these articles since? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon. "

So we can deduce that Maria Harvey looked over the clothes in the room.

We can also be certain that Mary would have owned such a small amount of clothing (and no wardrobe) that Joe Barnett would have been very familiar with it, having lived with her in that room.

Witnesses elsewhere cite Mary as having a linsey frock, shabbyskirt/velvet body and a red or maroon shawl, and it is stated "her clothes were found
neatly folded on a chair".

If these clothes were not the same ones on the chair, or if they were missing from the room, then I believe that this would have been noted at the inquest.

As to whether it was Mary, or her killer, that burned Maria's clothing -of course we cannot know for sure. Nevertheless, the clothes were in Mary's safekeeping for a friend, and they had some monetary value ; if Mary didn't care about her friend's possessions, she could have sold or pawned the clothes for cash. On the otherhand, the sole person to whom they could have no value was the murderer -linked to him they could have gotten him hung.

[Phil H]

As to whether it was Mary, or her killer, that burned Maria's clothing -of course we cannot know for sure. Nevertheless, the clothes were in Mary's safekeeping for a friend, and they had some monetary value ; if Mary didn't care about her friend's possessions, she could have sold or pawned the clothes for cash. On the otherhand, the sole person to whom they could have no value was the murderer -linked to him they could have gotten him hung.

Unless MJK had an animus against Maria for some reason? Destroying another person's possessions/clothing is a common reaction to perceived wrong.

Alternatively, as noted somewhere else on this site recently, it could also show that the killer hated MJK personally and attacked what he mave thought were her possessions as well as her.

Phil

[Sally]

What I find interesting about this is that some clothes were burned, some were left folded neatly on a chair. How do we explain that?

It's intriguing.

[Phil H]

What I find interesting about this is that some clothes were burned, some were left folded neatly on a chair. How do we explain that?

Especially, Sally, as the folded clothes appear to have been MJK's and the burned ones, Maria's.

I have felt for some years that if only we could work out what went on here and answer questions such as:

a) when the clothes were burned;

b) why? to provide light? warmth (if the murderer worked naked for instance)? to burn something?

c) if the clothing smouldered, wouldn't the room have been difficult to "work" in for the killer?

d) who burned the clothing - was MJK still alive at the time?

e) why are there no witness reports of a bright light from No 13, or smoke from the smouldering clothing?

Perpexing to me is that I don't believe that burned clothing would provide much heat or light - it would simply smoulder. Yet Abberline records the spout having come off a kettle because the solder melted; and a bonnet burned to its wire frame.

The damage to the kettle might have been caused previously, I suppose, but if we assume the solder melted that night (spoutless kettles are not much practical use), then what was burned to create a fire large enough and hot enough to consume a bonnet (and other clothing?) and melt solder?

I doubt MJK kept much wood or paper in the room to act as kindling - but perhaps she did so she could boil water and warm food?

To be WILDLY speculative for a moment, I don't suppose a "secret agent" MJK and an accomplice might have been destroying incriminating papers or evidence? (Calm down, I'm not being serious - I doubt papers would have burned so completely and there is no mention of fragments of burned documents as I recall.) Nevertheless, the destruction of something would be a reason to have such a blaze.

As I said at the beginning of this post, I believe that if we could answer some of these questions then we would advance our understanding of this murder to a considerable extent.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

What I find interesting about this is that some clothes were burned, some were left folded neatly on a chair. How do we explain that?

It's intriguing.

Absolutely fascinating , Sally -

Mary's clothes were probably damp and Maria's dry.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby -I think that we can safely assume that the folded clothes were Mary's, because all the witnesses were taken to the room in Miller's Court and shown the contents.

for example Maria Harvey listed the clothes that she had left with Mary "
I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girls white petticoat.
[Coroner] Have you seen any of these articles since? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon. "

So we can deduce that Maria Harvey looked over the clothes in the room.

We can also be certain that Mary would have owned such a small amount of clothing (and no wardrobe) that Joe Barnett would have been very familiar with it, having lived with her in that room.

Witnesses elsewhere cite Mary as having a linsey frock, shabbyskirt/velvet body and a red or maroon shawl, and it is stated "her clothes were found
neatly folded on a chair".

If these clothes were not the same ones on the chair, or if they were missing from the room, then I believe that this would have been noted at the inquest.

As to whether it was Mary, or her killer, that burned Maria's clothing -of course we cannot know for sure. Nevertheless, the clothes were in Mary's safekeeping for a friend, and they had some monetary value ; if Mary didn't care about her friend's possessions, she could have sold or pawned the clothes for cash. On the otherhand, the sole person to whom they could have no value was the murderer -linked to him they could have gotten him hung.

Thanks Ruby!

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely fascinating , Sally -

Mary's clothes were probably damp and Maria's dry.

Yup-thats probably it then.

It would seem that MK probably removed her own clothes then passed out once Blotchy left. Her killer came to her room-he knew her and snuck in when she was sleeping.
The killer started a fire after he killed her (around 4:00 am)for light, mutilated her, took her heart out and cooked it in the kettle and probably then ate it (why cook a heart).

I am starting to wonder if cannibalism emerged as part of his MO as the series progressed, along with facial mutilation.

[Phil H]

The killer started a fire after he killed her (around 4:00 am)for light, mutilated her, took her heart out and cooked it in the kettle and probably then ate it (why cook a heart).

Would clothes have burned fiercely enough to cook a heart and make it capable of being eaten? What did he use for kindling?

Did he remove the remains and any juices from the kettle and take them away - we know Abberline examined the kettle?

Finally, wasn't this subject - cooking and eateing the heart discussed recently on Casebook? I seem to recall a conclusion that it was impractical - but maybe I missed something.

Phil

[Sally]

Fire

The fire was hot enough to melt the kettle - whatever the kettle was made from, it would have obviously been heat-proof to some extent; since it would have been heated on the fire regularly.

So the fire could have been quite hot - I suppose that would have been hot enough to burn clothes.