The burnt clothing

[babybird67]

breaking the furniture

would have been too noisy wouldn't it?

[Robert]

I should think that, given the crap that McCarthy would have supplied for his tenants, he could have broken a chair or table over his knee.

[The Grave Maurice]

I joined in this thread near the beginning, but now it's getting silly. Hearts are virtually all muscle. Go down to your local butcher's, buy a pig or sheep's heart, wrap it in an old sweater, set it alight, and, when it stops smoldering, see how good it tastes.

The only reasonable idea I've heard lately is Sally's: the clothing was burned by JtR to destroy any remaining part of MJK. The only trouble with that theory is that MJK's clothing was, as I recall, found folded on a chair when the cops showed up.

[Phil H]

The only reasonable idea I've heard lately is Sally's: the clothing was burned by JtR to destroy any remaining part of MJK. The only trouble with that theory is that MJK's clothing was, as I recall, found folded on a chair when the cops showed up.

From which the logical deduction is that the body on the bed was Maria's and that her clothing was burned for for reasons given - except that Maria was very much alive, of course.

Shows that we shouldn't rely too much on straight logic in this case (IMHO).

[Sally]

I think Richard has it right -

Did these items have significance to the killer, did they represent whoring?

Yes, some of the clothing burned appears to have belonged somebody else; but I'm afraid the logical conclusion arrived at by Phil is flawed: we have no way of knowing whether Kelly's killer knew to whom the clothing belonged, or not. If not, there is no reason for him (or her) to question its ownership - whore's clothing in a whore's room.

I don't really think Kelly's killer would have been burning a heap of clothing for light, or warmth - since I don't think it would provide much of either; and in any case, a bright fire illuminating the room would have constituted a greater risk of notice by others at a time when most were in their beds; AND furthermore, this was a killer who had managed quite successfully in near total darkness on several other occasions.

AND also (while I'm at it) where was the fuel normally used for the fire? This would have been coal. Normally, there would be a coal scuttle in the room. Assuming there was coal, why didn't the killer simply use that if he wanted a fire?

The only reasonable idea I've heard lately is Sally's: the clothing was burned by JtR to destroy any remaining part of MJK.

Thank you Grave; but I'm afraid I can't take the credit, as it was Babybird who first suggested it (unbeknown to me, since I was too lazy to read the entire thread before posting!)

[Phil H]

...I'm afraid the logical conclusion arrived at by Phil is flawed

I do apologise, I was being flippant but did not make that clear enough. I thought my second sentence showed that the "conclusion" was untenable!

Phil

[babybird67]

hi Robert

I'm not arguing that the furniture would have been too difficult to break, however it would have made the noise of breaking wood, which is a more difficult noise to explain if it drew curious bystanders/neighbours to the room. It would make more sense to burn clothing, which would make no noise at all. Also, as Sally has pointed out, presumably there would have been coal there anyway?

I really think the killer was a complete destructor. He wanted to obliterate the victims and everything that made them individuals, hence the increasing savagery and the escalation to facial features seen in Catherine and Mary's cases. I don't even think he saw them as human individuals. And as Sally also pointed out, WE may know in hindsight that the clothes burned weren't Mary's, but how can we know the killer knew that?

[Sally]

I think the killer's use of Eddowe's apron - presumably to wipe his hands/knife with - demonstrates clearly enough that he was quite willing and able to interact personally with his victims clothing having killed them.

Clothing is highly personal; people can be almost synoymous with their clothing - perhaps particularly true of women (then and at many other times) whose clothing was their chief form of social display and an undoubted source of power. I do think that controlling his victims clothing - by arranging it post-mortem, or by using it for his own purposes, or by destroying it at will - would have been empowering for the killer whilst objectifying his victims still further.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Well certainly some clothing was folded on a chair, and some clothing had been be left by Maria Harvey. Some clothing had been burnt in the grate. It is not certain as to just who's was on the chair and who's had been burnt. From that the logical premise would be that it would have to have been a mixture of the two that had been burnt.

What is also a logical premise is that all that Mary Kelly had in that room that was of any value to her was the clothing.

She had been out in the rain that night. Presumably the clothing on the chair if it had been hers would have been damp. The other clothing would have been dry.

From the killers perspective the most valuable to Mary would have been the dry clothing.

The visciousness would have been the intention of burning Mary's clothes, or what he believed where her clothes.

That they could have been a mixture I dont believe lessens that.

Best wishes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Again we should remember that Times report. the fire remains included a piece of velvet, which was off a jacket that the victim owned, and which was ''missing''.
Other burnt items include a girls petticoat , a couple of shirts, and a bonnet, these items were left my Mrs Harvey.[ not in that report]
The jacket was last seen on Mary at 8pm on the 8th, but not on Kelly at midnight.
Question why did the killer destroy that garment, when other more flimsey clothing would have been present? if because it was bloodstained, when and how did that occur, and why burn it?
That report which was the basis of this thread, needs some answers.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

If I had been Kelly, I'd have worn the pilot coat instead of strolling around in the rain, but there you go.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Infact that report hold another snippit of intrest, for it hints that the police believed the killer did the act in ''Daylight'', and the clothes were burnt because they were proberly bloodstained.
Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Robert,
Mayby it didnt fit,or it did not live up to her Marie Jeanette status, or more likely it acted as a very handy curtain, and draught excluder, and gave that sordid room privacy.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

But surely, she wouldn't care about fashion if it was a matter of getting drenched to the bone in winter? Also, it wouldn't have mattered who looked through the window when she wasn't at home.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Robert.
We will never know why Kelly did not use that coat, how about the obvious 'It did not belong to her'?..as for getting drenched if she was roaming the streets in the pouring rain, she obviously did not care about being wet, or just accepted it.
Regards Richard.