the key

[Heinrich]

.... I can think of at least one more that I'd put in the frame before Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly. ....

Who would he be and why, Claire?

[claire]

I have not read of any other suspect who comes close to meeting the motive, means, and opportunity as does Barnett.

Ah. Well, that clinches it, then. I can think of at least one more that I'd put in the frame before Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly. But then, if you've not read of any other suspect who comes close, then case closed, then.

Get your coats, guys.

[Heinrich]

If the killer -was- JtR, why would he give a damn about his clothes? ....

I think it is a faulty procedure to suppose Mary Kelly's murderer has to be same same person who killed the other four canonical victims despite the opinion of Dr Thomas Bond at the time. This is not to deny there might be a link to one or more of the other murders and Dr. Bond is credited with the reputation of being the first criminal profiler. Nevertheless, trying to make all the pieces fit together from the other cases at the outset can lead in many and contradictory avenues. I believe it is more productive to take the case of Mary Kelly on its own merits, principally because one suspect does emerge head and shoulders above the rest, namely, Joseph Barnett. I have not read of any other suspect who comes close to meeting the motive, means, and opportunity as does Barnett.

Having identified Joseph Barnett, one can then see if the evidence about one or more of the other murders also points at him. For example, he lived in Whitechapel. He also took a special interest in how the murders were reported in the press and he read these accounts to his last victim. The spate of murders attributed to Jack the Ripper stopped after Barnett murdered Mary Kelly with whom he had been most involved. And so on.

[Ausgirl]

If the killer -was- JtR, why would he give a damn about his clothes? He didn't, in any of the other murders. He either bolted off bloodstained or, as I think may be more probable, had a coat handy to sling over the evidence since nobody saw any uncommonly bloody men after the close-call crimes. There was probably more risk in not taking incriminating evidence with him and disposing of it some place else.

To me, it looks like he just wanted to destroy her utterly. Maybe he spotted her wearing the hat and jacket earlier, so those were items he chose to destroy as 'identifiers' of Mary Kelly, in his mind.

If she was wearing different clothes when she went out later, why wouldn't he burn those? Why the hat (okay I can see a straw bonnet being good fuel) and the jacket (which would not burn well at all)? If the answer's 'her other clothes were damp' or the 'shawl is wool' - well, okay. But that velvet jacket wouldn't burn much easier. Not like dry cotton sheets, or petticoats, or an apron, or something else that -would- burn well. He had a variety of things to burn - and chose the coat and jacket.

Maybe even, for once, he did get his jollies and there was semen on the coat. Kind of a gross thing to think about - but what was unusual here was that he had time and privacy he would not have had in any of the street crimes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Here are the two scenariors most likely for me:

1) Kelly and JTR go to Kelly's and in a dunken/semi drunken state just throw clothes on to the fire - together - to warm up.

2) JTR throws damp clothes onto the fire in an attempt to put it out.

Or, as others have said, perhaps he throws clothes on the fire because in some way it incriminates him. I doubt he would have been concerned about being challenged walking through the streets at night, but in the event his occupation was not involved with slaughtering/blood, and he owned only one set of clothes, and he lived in a doss house and people knew he was out that night, then I can see the forethought regarding what to do when daylight comes round.

If they're his own clothes then I think you can rule out him living on his own. Wonder if this fits with Grainger and his claims to have been 'bilked'. Perhaps this is another example of Grainger 'losing' clothes'. I suppose if he had to back to a ship or poor house then questions would have been asked.

[Lechmere]

He may have killed her then undressed before the actual ripping.
I don't think it's that important unless you have a suspect to promote.
She could have undressed while he watched or they could have got undressed together.
Or she may have been undressed already if you prefer to speculate that he didn't enter the room with her.
It depends on your suspect and I would suggest there is absolutely nothing we know regarding the evidence of Kelly's position in the room or on the bed, nor of the material in the fire that can substantiate any particular proposition.

[Wickerman]

I doubt the killer burnt his own clothes otherwise he would have attracted attention to himself when he vacated the murder scene.

What I meant was that it is possible that an item or two of his was burned in the fire. Perhaps his waistcoat?, shirt? or something he was wearing which was too bloodstained to hide from view. I don't mean all his clothes.
And, for all we know a womans hat may have been thrown on the fire for whatever reason, the wireframe, seen by Abberline might have been the only indication Abberline used to make his determination that 'all' the items were of a womans atire, he may have been wrong, but we can't second guess him on that.

Still, if we assume any of the clothing belonged to the killer we might have to abandon one avenue of speculation about how she died.
As she was found essentially undressed, and her clothes apparently had not been torn off her then she must have undressed herself. Any client she had with her is unlikely to have remained fully clothed, so as she was undressed, then perhaps, so was he, when the attack commenced.

If that is the case then, how would his clothing become bloodstained?
No matter what we suggest, we always end up with more questions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

Jon, I guess the jury is out on just about every point - except of course that Barnett was the killer.

Yes, Robert. If we take everyone's testimony as unimpeachable, correct in every detail (including self contradictions), and all of equal value, we end-up with absurdities and such a mishmash of bogus claims that we would not know to this day who killed Mary Kelly, and be as much in the dark as the Whitechapel citizens of 1888. Identifying the killer demands developing a theory which is supported by contemporaneous documentation and stands the test of logic. There is no suspect with more evidence against him from his own and others' testimonies, our knowledge of his relationship with Mary Kelly, the circumstances surrounding his movements on the night of the murder, and his familiarity with 13 Miller's Court than Joseph Barnett.

[Lechmere]

I doubt the killer burnt his own clothes otherwise he would have attracted attention to himself when he vacated the murder scene. Where would he hide the knife - in his butt cheeks? Let's not speculate about the heart.
If he was concerned about blood he could have at least partially undressed – maybe that’s why he fed the fire – to create warmth.

[Robert]

Jon, I guess the jury is out on just about every point - except of course that Barnett was the killer.

[Wickerman]

I don't really see the point of the killer burning his clothing in order to evade suspicion, yet leaving the Court with Kelly's heart in his pocket.

Isn't the jury still out on that point also?

[Robert]

I don't really see the point of the killer burning his clothing in order to evade suspicion, yet leaving the Court with Kelly's heart in his pocket.

[Wickerman]

..... unless of course the clothing belonged to the killer , or accomplice, and believed the bloodstained jacket might incriminate them.

When all is said and done, I do agree that the most likely identification for the burnt clothing is that it belonged to the killer.
However, against this we have Abberline identifying the burnt remains as suggestive of women's clothing.

- The killer could not leave wearing his clothes IF they were bloodstained. He did not want to run the risk of being seen in the streets in bloodstained clothes.

- He could not leave them behind as they may help identify him, especially if he was known to be seen with Kelly just prior to entering Millers Court.
Therefore, his only option was to burn those few items.

Against this, we might ask, what about the rest of his clothing?, which equally may help to identify him, bloodstained or not, if seen leaving Millers Court dressed as he was when he entered?
He couldn't burn everything he wore.

On the one hand it makes sense that the burnt clothing would be mens clothing, yet indications are that they were womens, theirin lies the dilemma.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi,
the report of a couple in Dorset street laughing at the reward poster[ thought to have been Kelly by witnesses] , The report of a young man and and a respectably dressed woman , with another standing by, apparently encouraging the former female to accompany him, who seemed reluctant,

Hi, Richard,
enough to run several imaginations amok.

I am unfamiliar with the above information.

Is it here on casebook?

If not, where can I find it in order to study it more?

Thanks,

curious

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My imagination is once again ''running amok''.
What have we got?
Kelly's common law Barnett, leaves the dwelling on the 30TH, she appears to have sleepovers on several nights, but not on the 8TH, but possibly on request borrows Harvey's bonnet, she is seen wearing her velvet jacket, and the bonnet 9pm [ 8th], she is seen returning to her room alone around 11pm, but appears to have ventured out again wearing different clothing, to finally return home with blotchy around midnight, and then ventures out again at 2am, to meet Hutchinson, followed by Mr A.
We unfortunately have no record of the clothing Mary K was wearing at 2pm, if we assume that it was the same clothing seen by Mrs Cox, then her jacket and bonnet would have been in room 13, when the couple returned there, and to have become bloodstained must have been on the bed...
But Why burn those two items?, the killer had no reason to commit that act [ as assumed by the police] unless of course the clothing belonged to the killer , or accomplice, and believed the bloodstained jacket might incriminate them.
or may give a clue to when what time the murder happened.
The very fact that Mary K was seen after medical opinion believed she died, the coincidence that the murder happened, when she had a night with no planned sleepovers, the changing of outfits on the eve of the 8TH, the report of a couple in Dorset street laughing at the reward poster[ thought to have been Kelly by witnesses] , The report of a young man and and a respectably dressed woman , with another standing by, apparently encouraging the former female to accompany him, who seemed reluctant, the whole episode with the Hutchinson sighting, which could have been acted out for his benefit..
Other points..
Kelly's bad dream ..which she told a court resident about shortly before her death... the subject of the dream'' That she was being murdered'', then on the night of her death.. She would ''Do away with herself''...
and on top of that complete disfigurement of the body..
Regards Richard.