MJK: Crime Scene Analysis

[Supe]

Sox,

If the solder were "still soft" then they would have caught Jack in the very act. Most likely there were traces of the remelted solder running down the sides of the kettle and the spout, also with traces, lying in close proximity.

And once again, the fire need not have been fierce to do this. So long as the kettle was empty, any fire would have done the trick in short order.

Don.

[Chava]

It has been pointed out many times, that burning clothes smoulder, as opposed to flare, so it is difficult to believe the killer burned them for light. Also you have the candle that Kelly bought from McCarthy, still standing on the table.

Hi Sox

I absolutely agree. He wasn't trying to light his way. I doubt he was trying to stay warm. He burnt that stuff for a reason and he burnt a lot of it. I assume he was burning material that could incriminate him, and I doubt that was Mary Kelly's hat and the other bits and bobs. He may well have been burning bloodstained pieces of his own clothing, but that stuff would not have burnt at all, it would have smoked and produced an unpleasant and possibly attention-attracting smell. However let's suppose that's what he burnt. Say his shirt. So he must walk through the streets shirtless on a cold November night. However he may be wearing a coat or jacket that will hide this fact. But said coat or jacket would hide the bloody shirt as well. Okay, but if he's stopped and searched, the police would see the blood. But if he's stopped and searched and they discover he's not wearing a shirt. And there are bloody remnants of a shirt in Kelly's grate, that's not helping him.

Okay. He came prepared. He has an extra shirt with him in his little parcel all ready to change into. But if that's the case, he intended to kill a woman in a situation where he knew he would be able to change. (And keeping your clean shirt clean in that charnel-house would have taken a miracle.)

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

[paul emmett]

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

Hi, Chava, All.

I certianly agree. Not heat; not light. Evidence. But isn't the one thing that has to be factored in here Harvey's clothes. How could they be considered evidence? Are they just to cover up the ashes? Naahh. Not Kelly's clothes, readily available, but Harvey's.

One other thing--about the time and intensity of the fire. The Physics Prof here says that to judge the heat of an extinguished fire back then, they would have used Newton's Law of Cooling, which related heat of ashes and time since fire to heat of fire. But if they miscalculated the time of the fire, if Abberline thought it had been earlier than it actually was, he would have then thought it was hotter than it actually was too.

[Tron]

I absolutely agree. He wasn't trying to light his way. I doubt he was trying to stay warm. He burnt that stuff for a reason and he burnt a lot of it. I assume he was burning material that could incriminate him, and I doubt that was Mary Kelly's hat and the other bits and bobs.

You are jumping to conclusions, careful. There is no evidence the killer actually started the fire, so it is possible MJK lit the fire. The facts do not contradict either theory. Instead of burning material, it would have been easier to remove it from the crime scene and dispose of it at a second location.

In your scenario it was premeditated murder so most likely the perpetrator could have brought a second set of clothes or prepared by other means. Dark clothes would not show blood stains and Luminol was not invented yet so he could not be convicted

For me, the shortest distance between two points is that whoever killed her knew that there was something in that room that led directly to him. And he burned it. There was a quantity of ashes in the grate along with the charred stuff. I think that whatever it was was in those ashes. Probably paper. And he burned the other stuff to hide it.

I would wager if there was an attempt made to burn/destroy something it may be the missing heart (but there is no proof for that). This would have strong symbolic meaning or it could be a symptom of mental illness. If he really wanted to burn paper, aside from the fact that I do not recall burned paper to be present, he would have simply burned the paper (burns better than cotton or whatever else the clothes were made of).

[HollyDolly]

MJK:Crime Scene Analysis

Ally your are right about spouses causing horrible mutilations to their spouses. Back in the 1990s or early 2000's,there was an article in the San Antonio Express News about a murder in the east coast,think it was New Hampshire or Massachuesett. This woman made her husband dinner.Well according to the article, he didn't like the way she had made his spagehetti,so he killed her,and then cut out her heart and lungs and then impaled them on a post in the yard for all to see. A neighbor called police, and he was arrested.
I don't recall if they executed him or not, but he is still in prison.
I'm sure he was mad at her for more than just his dinner,though people have killed for some of the stupidest reasons known to mankind.

Maybe Jack brought an apron or some sort of coat to cover his clothing while
engaged in his gruesome work.That was the bundle he was carrying,and could have burnt it in the fire.Mary Jane might have started a fire herself,if there was a chill in the air.
Does anyone know what the weather conditions were like the night she died?
Yes,dark clothing might not show blood stains,and no one would notice any.