The burnt clothing

[Natasha]

I feel that if the killer lit the fire so (s)he could see what they were doing, would it not make sense to burn the duvet cover, as there was quite alot of it?

I think the killer may have changed his/hers shirt after the murder, worn the shirt left by Harvey, and discarded their shirt in the fire.

Abberline did make the suggestion of Jill the ripper after MJK's death. Maybe the ripper used this as a disguise, after all the police were looking for a man, so I guess this would be the best way to deflect attention.

There was a report in the newspaper, that a man was stopped and questioned by the police because he was dressed as a woman.

[Rosella]

The man in women's clothing was a reporter, who apparently thought he would have a better chance of observing men on the streets who could be Jack if he wore female clothing! He was stopped by a policeman and taken to the station, where he must have sent for his (male) clothing and re-dressed.

I take the view that on a cold and very dark November early morning, towards 4am Jack would have wanted both heat and a bit more light than one solitary candle could provide.

He probably threw things of Maria's and a few things of Mary's on the flames a little at a time as he was having his fun, just so he could see his handiwork. It didn't have to be a huge blaze, just enough for him to complete his work.

I think Jack was in his shirt, Mary in her chemise. She was probably in a drunken sleep when he first attacked.

[Cogidubnus]

And throwing clothing willy nilly onto a low fire wouldn't have put it out rather than revived it? Do you have, or have you ever had, live fires in your house?

Chucking substantial quantities of (pre-nylon) clothing on a low fire would more than likely put it out rather than produce more light...

Take it from someone who still does live fires#, (and my two ranges*, one old one new, too!), if you sling enough clothing (or even ordinary newspapers) on a low fire it will go out...

All the best

Dave

# - in my sitting room and master bedroom I'm still into live coal fires

* In my dining room I've an original Black Lead Range fired up mostly on special occasions - typically Christmas...in my kitchen I've an Aga-Rayburn (on throughout the winter) plus a modern cooker

[Wickerman]

I tend to agree with the above, on the other hand I would have thought that fabric if not too dense would only flare up for a short time rather like a single newspaper page not provide a lasting light of any value.
We are after all only talking about a couple of shirts and a hat?

[markmorey5]

A cotton shirt or hat doesn't burn particularly well which is why it was possible to identify the clothing in the ashes on the grate. So for warmth or light, clothing was not the way to go. Perhaps the killer didn't know much about fires.

[Wickerman]

What would Kelly do for light normally?
Lighting a fire and keeping it going all night and every night is not always possible, and if the candle had not been used much since purchased then I wonder if the fact those tenements were whitewashed outside reflected sufficient light into those rooms from the single lamp in the court.

So, why burn clothing?

[Rosella]

Kelly was probably out trawling for customers most nights or, if she had a few pennies, drinking at the pub (enjoying a bit of warmth and light.) She'd only use the candle if she brought clients back for a little while (in which case the light would be adequate) or if she wanted to sleep for the rest of the night she probably didn't bother to light it.

[Natasha]

I think the fire was set to destroy something of importance, what, I don't know.

I don't buy the need for light theory, if MJK was indeed a ripper victim.
It appears that he managed to kill/mutilate the other victims in the dark.

A hat was burned in the fire, how do we know it was a woman's hat? It has been argued over before, but it could be a piece of incriminating evidence, having said that a woman may have been present as an accomplice to the murder. If Kelly was in the habit of letting women stay the night, maybe this woman opened the door for the ripper. Just a thought.

Someone mentioned that throwing clothes on the fire would more likely put the fire out. I do believe that the fire wasn't lit to see. I think that if the ripper wanted light he would use the duvet. My argument for this: well in Victorian times people had access to duvets. They contained feathers. Feathers are flammable!

[Natasha]

I was looking at some info on Victorian history and was reading about laundress s which brings me to Maria Harvey. I still can’t work out why she apparently left Kelly some dirty washing. Anyway laundress s used Kerosene to remove bloodstains, which I found very interesting.

At the inquest Abberline remarked on how hot the fire must have been in order to melt the metal pot. Now my thought immediately went back to the kerosene, (I know it has been mentioned before on ere). Perhaps there may have been a few dabs on some of the garments. Would this be enough to create a large fire hot enough to burn a metal pot? I think not.
What if someone poured enough to feed the fire? Of course there was no mention of the smell of any flammable substance, but since it has been in use since the mid 19th century, perhaps Abberline didn’t mention it because it was a mundane thing, and the remains found there were of more interest.

So if Kerosene was the cause of the fireplace blaze, who would have access to it the kerosene? Could Kelly really afford such luxuries? She couldn’t even keep up with her rent payments. 4 pints cost 3pence at the time. Would Kelly have been able to afford this? Or did the killer have ready access, perhaps from someone who works as a laundress?

I realise I’m pointing the finger at Harvey here, as I suspect she would have access to kerosene. Her testimony doesn’t add up with Lizzie Albrooks, and Barnett corroborates Albrooks version. So if Harvey was involved why would she incriminate herself? Could she have been present when Kelly was killed, was she wearing some of these garments? Was Harvey involved? Was she covering for someone, perhaps she went in the house to dispose of evidence?

This might seem like a bit of a long shot, but could Maria Harvey have been related to P.C James Harvey? We don’t know much about either so I thought I would raise the question.