The burnt clothing

[Robert]

I am far from being a Barnettist, but I must say that the destruction of the clothing chimes perfectly with the Barnett theory. Here we have a man who allegedly resented Kelly's sharing a room with another woman. In which case, doesn't the burning of Harvey's clothes look like sheer spite?

[Hatchett]

Hi Babybird and Sally,

That is indeed an excellent point. One that is well worth repeating. As I said before to Babybird in an earlier post, it is very plausible.

Thinking it through if the burning of the clothes was a final destruction of Mary Kelly it displays a really deep hatred in keeping with the almost unbelievable carnage in that little room.

Also, these clothes were presumably Mary Kelly's best, and the only half decent things that she owned. If so they would have been the clothes that she was saving to wear at the Lord Mayor's show. The one colourful day
in a very drab year of a very drab life. An event that she had been looking forward to.

This brings a deep understanding of the real human sadness in Mary Kelly's life and the utter vindictiveness of the killer.

In trying to solve this case the clinical facts often detract from the almost unbearable sadness and cruelty of these nurders, particularly Mary Kelly's.

Thank you to you both.

Best wishes.

David.

x

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Let me make a point..just came to me.
At 9pm Elizabeth Prater saw kelly. and spoke to her, wearing her velvet jacket and a bonnet[ mayby Mrs Harveys? the latter].
Around 1145-midnight Mrs Cox saw Mary [ with Blotchy] not wearing those garments.
Question .. Why should Mary return home to change her clothing between 9am -1145?
Could it be that she she did so because of the weather, and she wanted to keep them without being spoiled for the following day.?
Did the killer destroy them out of spite?.
I feel I may be guilty of too much speculation, but I strongly feel that Astracans appearance,his attire, and the jacket and bonnet that kelly initially wore on the last night of her life have significance.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

I don't see why people are saying that Kelly's clothes were burned. Harvey's, yes, but where is the evidence that any of Kelly's were burned?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Robert,
Kelly owned a black velvet jacket, which I have always been led to believe remains were found in the grate.
Note the ''Black Mary '' nickname.
As I have recently mentioned the jacket in question was seen to have been worn by Mary about 7 hours before she [allegedly] was killed.
Obviously Harveys clothes were burnt, but that jacket was also, the bonnet that she was seen to have been wearing by Prater, proberly belonged to Mrs harveys left overs, was also burnt.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

Could you point me to the press article where the black velvet jacket is mentioned, please?

[richardnunweek]

Good Morning Robert,
The report came from post one of this thread, ie The Times Nov12, it does not state the colour of the jacket, but somewhere it is written that she often wore a ''Black velvet jacket''.mayby others could name the source.
It however does stipulate in that press report, that remains of a peice of velvet was found [ in the grate] which was the velvet jacket the victim ''often wore'' which was missing.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

But I think you would have to cook on a fire that was banked - flames would be no good at all. What sort of fire would the clothing have created - does anybody know?

I think a person could wrap a heart up in some woolens and bake it like a potato to cook it through. I don't think they'd burn so fast and would just smolder and retain heat. I am totally serious when I say I believe the murderer ate the organs. He had plenty of time to cook it up right in this instance as well.

Mike

[curious]

I think a person could wrap a heart up in some woolens and bake it like a potato to cook it through. I don't think they'd burn so fast and would just smolder and retain heat. I am totally serious when I say I believe the murderer ate the organs. He had plenty of time to cook it up right in this instance as well.

Mike

So he burned the clothing to cook his meal?

[Sally]

I think a person could wrap a heart up in some woolens and bake it like a potato to cook it through. I don't think they'd burn so fast and would just smolder and retain heat. I am totally serious when I say I believe the murderer ate the organs. He had plenty of time to cook it up right in this instance as well.

Mike

Thanks for that Mike - interesting. I think as the killer (I'm for one killer for the C5) was taking organs from his victims; presumably as trophies, it's hard to see what else he would have done with them but consume them. I don't know how long a heart would take to cook - maybe I need to go to a few more barbecues

As you say though, the killer would probably have had time to do it.

[Robert]

Thanks Richard. Well, Abberline did say that articles of women's clothing had been burnt, which if taken literally rules out the girl's petticoat. I have trouble imagining that the murderer would have thrown a whole jacket on the fire, unless he first shredded it with his knife. According to one sketch, which might or might not be reliable, Kelly's dress was hung over a chair and her shoes were on the floor. Perhaps the reason these survived (with the shawl too) was that they were damp.

I think if the murderer simply wanted to further destroy Kelly via her clothes, he would have just shredded them. Assuming that Kelly didn't start the fire herself, the murderer must have started it for light or warmth - in which case, why didn't he break up and burn the furniture?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Robert,
Back to my initial post, I still ask the question.''Why did the police believe that the killer burnt clothing because they were bloodstained'?
Why would that bother the killer, was there a very good reason that he should place a bonnet,into the fire and obviouly shed kellys jacket and destroy .
Is it important that kelly was wearing that outfit when she ventured out at 9pm on the 8th.?
Did these items have significance to the killer, did they represent whoring?
Was kelly initially wearing her jacket when attacked?.
Explanations needed...
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

.

Assuming that Kelly didn't start the fire herself, the murderer must have started it for light or warmth - in which case, why didn't he break up and burn the furniture?[/QUOTE

]

pure speculation: because it would have 'cost' the murderer to have destroyed something which he thought had monetary value...not conciously of course...and even though those poor sticks of furniture seem worthless to us today.

The clothes were worth nothing in his eyes because he would have been unable to pawn them without incriminating himself.

Furthermore, Mary didn't own the furniture -she did the feminine clothes (would the killer know that they were Harvey's ?). He would know that the
furniture most probably belonged to the male landlord.

[curious]

I've just read this interesting article:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html

which discusses the fire and burnt clothing:

"HEARTH: A fuse for the psychopath’s time bomb, to give him a few moments to make his escape. The purpose of cramming the hearth full of garments he found in the room was to signal local sister prostitutes, drawing one or more of them to Kelly’s room by the intended leaping flames and (possibly) the whistling of the teapot. "

Of course, if this were truly Jack's plan, it does not appear to have succeeded.

curious

[merlyn555]

"found in the room were remnants of clothes in the grate of the fireplace a portion of a brim of a hat and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt?
They had been burned in a fire so hot that it melted the spout off a nearby kettle.
Mary Kelly’s clothing was found neatly folded on a chair near the fireplace with her boots set close by."

Dr. George Baxter Phillip's purposed the idea that JtR lit the fire to see his work by and this makes sense to me.

This is the Rippers first time that we know of where he has the time and oportunity to observe his work first hand. He would be quite curious I think and would not pass up this chance to get a good look at his savagery. He wants to see if the fantasy is as good in real life as it is in his head.

Chris