The burnt clothing

[babybird67]

The destruction of the clothing, being personal to Kelly, was a further measure by the killer to de-personalise her - especially if those were her 'best' clothes. It appears from the facial disfigurements inflicted on both Eddowes and Kelly that the killer may have wanted to remove their identity; dehumanise them?

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

[Phil H]

Yummy!!

[The Good Michael]

Roast heart anyone?

Mike

[Phil H]

The destruction of the clothing, being personal to Kelly, was a further measure by the killer to de-personalise her - especially if those were her 'best' clothes. It appears from the facial disfigurements inflicted on both Eddowes and Kelly that the killer may have wanted to remove their identity; dehumanise them?

But weren't some of the burnt items those that belonged to Maria Hervey? Of course, we don't know whether whomever did it knew that!

However, we also don't know whether MJK HERSELF might have been involved in burning the clothes for some reason.

It's ALL speculation.

Phil

[cappuccina]

....excellent point, Sally....another "off the charts" angry gesture towards someone he had already horribly mutilated and murdered...

[Sally]

Maybe..

The destruction of the clothing, being personal to Kelly, was a further measure by the killer to de-personalise her - especially if those were her 'best' clothes. It appears from the facial disfigurements inflicted on both Eddowes and Kelly that the killer may have wanted to remove their identity; dehumanise them?

[cappuccina]

If he really wanted to look carefully and was, in fact after something, he would have brought some type of tradesman's bag to take the clothing with him, rather than risk missing something and creating a murderous frenzy in the bedsit and then burning the clothing.

He burned it to destroy evidence of murder, I think - plain and simple.

Statistics bear me out, I think....burglars, even when surprised do not usually murder...

[Phil H]

There is, of course, another reason for desroying clothing - to find anything sewn into linings or hidden within the hems etc. Whomever did this might want then to destroy the evidence that they had been searching.

Over history both documents and valuables have been concealed in this way. The Romanov women at Ekaterinberg had jewels sewn into their corsets and pearsl in dresses.

So could MJK's killer have been looking for something - correspondence, codes?

I hesitate to suggest another plank in the Fenian connection, but...?

Phil

[curious]

Why IS clothing removed from a body?

Interesting thread. And long. I’ve spent days reading it and had no idea the last post was back in April. Oh, well, here goes anyway.

Richard, like others I have been guilty of just accepting the theory that the clothes were burned to provide warmth or light – however, your question has made me ask:

Why is clothing removed from bodies in today’s world?

The most obvious answer is to hinder identification of the body.

In today’s clothing there are numerous tags that can help investigators learn the background of the deceased.

AH HA! The body in Millers Court was hacked beyond recognition, and there remain many questions about the background of “Mary Jane Kelly.”

Now, I know nothing about garments from the 1880s, but did dressmakers label their pieces in some way? Would the weave or design, perhaps even the fabric itself, tell investigators where the garment originated?

Is it possible the velvet jacket in particular could be used to identify the person who rented the room?

If that was the case, it makes sense (at least to me) that the person doing the burning would destroy the main garment(s) first then throw extras on the fire to disguise which pieces he/she was interested in destroying. OR to disguise WHY the clothing was burned in the first place.

While I can see some possibility that clothing laid out on the bed as she prepared to go out might indicate the time of death, I’m not sure I understand a reason to burn blood-soaked clothing considering the amount of blood in that room.

However, IF her velvet jacket was particularly fine and/or it or other garments could be traced backward for identification, now maybe . . . .

Any thoughts?

[Hatchett]

Hello Ruby,

I don't think it is a matter of squeamishness. I think it is a choice of professions. After all, surgery must have been quite horrific for the surgeon (and of course the patience) before anaesthetic. But people got used to it. I think that is the same for pathologists. They get immune. Many years ago I had a friend who for a short while had to work in an abattoir. He hated the sight of blood. But he needed a job and that was the only one he could get at the time. So he had to take it. He wasnt there long, thank goodness, but he got used to.

Human beings are very adaptable.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hi Carol,

I think that there could be a number of explanations for the cry of "oh murder!" It could very well have been as you said. It could also have been someone knocking on Mary Kelly's door and just an exlamation for her having been disturbed by a visitor at such an hour. Of course it could also have been an exclamation by someone else.

Best wishes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Hatchett,
I've been thinking the same about the actual murders. I hope this is true because then Mary Kelly would have been killed quickly. The cry of 'Oh, murder' that two women heard I'm also wondering may have come from someone else, and not Mary Kelly. Maybe someone (another prostitute?) had knocked on Mary's door at that time of the early morning to ask if she could stay there for a while as she was homeless and the night was awful, and not getting an answer had looked through the broken window and seen the carnage in the light of the still burning fire. Then ran off and was too frightened to come forward and witness to the police.
What do you think?
Carol

I think that is a possibility.

I would go along with the old fella William of Ockham in that the simplest solution is more likely.

[babybird67]

hi Ruby

I don't watch them either (too squeamish!) but I used to watch Silent Witness and I think it is maybe the ability for justice to be brought about through things which might otherwise be overlooked...a witness who can no longer speak in words, but whose pathology can still accuse and convict the perpetrator. It's a very powerful thing. I can see how that might appeal to people with the stomach for it!

Jen

[Rubyretro]

I would certainly agree that the mutilations were the motive rather than the killings themselves.

by the way, I just saw that series 'Bones' on the telly last night (it was rubbish)....it struck me that there have been a load of telly programmes featuring pathologists in the last few years which would seem to indicate that people in general have a fascination for dissecting dead bodies (not me
-I haven't watched any of these series, except NCIS).

What could explain this ??

Well, luckily people seem content to watch 'virtual' autopsies rather than murdering aquaintances to practise opening up then up and removing organs, themselves.

I wonder what is in the psyche of a real pathologist that would lead them to choose such a speciality ? Afterall, I can't imagine that that just 'anyone' would choose that job.

[Carol]

Hi FrankO,

I think you are right. The mutilations were the motive rather than the killing. Infact, the actual murders would appear to have been very brief and perfunctary. The mutilations would have taken more time.

I think they were the esence,

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett,
I've been thinking the same about the actual murders. I hope this is true because then Mary Kelly would have been killed quickly. The cry of 'Oh, murder' that two women heard I'm also wondering may have come from someone else, and not Mary Kelly. Maybe someone (another prostitute?) had knocked on Mary's door at that time of the early morning to ask if she could stay there for a while as she was homeless and the night was awful, and not getting an answer had looked through the broken window and seen the carnage in the light of the still burning fire. Then ran off and was too frightened to come forward and witness to the police.
What do you think?
Carol