The burnt clothing

[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?

[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

[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.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

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

[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]

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,
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.

[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

[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?

[Sally]

Roast heart anyone?

Mike

Eeugh! But it does lead me to think about whether heart-roasting would have been practical - I expect Kelly's killer would have had time if he was an organ muncher.

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?

Would the clothing have gone up in flames? Or being dense material (some at least) would it have had the opposite effect, and smouldered, actually extinguishing any flames present? If the clothing would have taken a long time to burn, how long?

I'm hoping somebody knows more about this than me!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Phil,
My intention was[ tonque-in-cheek] to try and grasp why the police considered the killer burnt clothing because they were bloodstained, the report does not say which of the garments were bloodstained, however we know the jacket MJK Was [ allegedly] wearing on the eve of the 8th was amongst them, also the bonnet.
I assumed that they believed, they were burnt because the bloodstains rendered them useless for wearing, or the presense of such items if intact,may have supplied a clue to the police.
Thus disposing of the items.
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

Sorry! It was just something that occurred to me. I admit to not having read the entire thread - I wouldn't have repeated your point if I'd realised

That's ok it's just that it's not very often I make a good point Sally so I didnt want to let it slip by!

[Phil H]

Is there room for the murderous midwife and the jJwish sochet in your theory Richard? It includes almost everything else but the kitchen sink and Gladstone bag!!

Just joking.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The very ''fact'' that Kellys Velvet jacket was burnt also a bonnet[ clothing that Elizabeth Prater saw her wearing at 9pm on the 8th] suggests that her killer may well have not only destroyed her identity, but also her ''sunday best''.
Why?
Also why did the police[ according to the report I initially mentoned] believe the burnt clothing was because of bloodstains, that would imply that they would be of no good to the killer...
Why?
Lets look at this ''Hitchcock'' scenerio,
What if Mary kelly actually assisted the killer, and she was not the victim, what if she let a unsuspecting young woman use her room, mayby for use for sex, and what if Hutchinson saw Kelly at a pre-arranged liason with Astracan, who then played out a scene for George, as in prostitute and client, then really overplayed the scene with complete verbal interaction. ie ''All right my dear you will be comftable''.
So we have Kelly pleading for money, then a meeting with a suspicious stranger, then a walk back to Dorset street, followed by a gullible Hutch.
Whats more if Prater was right , at 9pm kelly was wearing her velvet jacket and bonnet, I will suggest that Cox could not have seen kelly wearing different clothing at midnight..
Why would Mjk return home to ''dress down''?
So we could have Kelly and Astracan returning back to Millers court, with Mary wearing the same jacket and bonnet... we afterall have no description given by Gh, of Marys clothing.
So if this scenerio happened, would it not be possible that if another female was the victim, Mary Kelly could have spoiled her clothing, and they were burnt to disquise that, as would it not be suspicious, if the victim[ supposed to be Kelly] and supposed to be partially naked in bed, had bloodstained garments?
Surely that would explain the burning of such garments because of being bloodstained....if one takes my speculative mind.
Also would explain being seen by Maxwell wearing shawl etc, that could have been staged to give a morning murder some credence, if the victim was laying in room 13 at that time, and she met her partner [ market porter dressed down] then returned to the court and later left wearing the victims clothing, leaving the clothing Maxwell saw her wearing in the room.
All very dramatic but so were these murders....
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Yes excellent point that I already made earlier in this thread!

Sorry! It was just something that occurred to me. I admit to not having read the entire thread - I wouldn't have repeated your point if I'd realised