The burnt clothing

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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).

[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.

[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.

[babybird67]

breaking the furniture

would have been too noisy wouldn't it?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.