The burnt clothing

[Garry Wroe]

The alternative is to believe the killer burned whatever material was at hand to create more light to work with.

Perhaps, Jon. But since the night in question was cold and showery it is equally possible that the killer required heat (rather than light) in order to dry off his own rain-sodden clothing.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps, Jon. But since the night in question was cold and showery it is equally possible that the killer required heat (rather than light) in order to dry off his own rain-sodden clothing.

Which would hardly lend itself to making a quick getaway should he be interupted. Such a scenario might suggest the killer was making himself at home with no reason to feel caught as a stranger might should a neighbour come knocking.
The length of time he must have spent in that room might also suggest the same. How did he 'know' he wouldn't be interupted? Or, if someone came knocking, with a roaring fire in the room, why did he feel safe?

[Hatchett]

Hi Richard,

I always find your theories interesting.

I think it is quite likely that Mary Kelly originally lit the fire. It was a bad night that night, and she had been out on the streets on and off for quite a while. If though, as you suggest that she took off her clothes and put them on the end of the bed to dry them for the show the next day I think it is unlikely that she would have done that whilst she was "working" with a client. I think it is much more probable that she would have done that as she was retiring for the night.

This leaves us with the scenario that Mary's Killer was either someone other than a client, who she felt safe with or someone who had crept into her room while she was asleep.

The other point is what would have made the blaze in the fire, hot enough to melt part of the kettle which would have been made to withstand heat.

If the clothing had been drenched in blood that would not have caused the blaze. In fact it would have tended to smoulder.

But what could have caused it maybe was body fat.

With all terrible skinning and mutilation body fat could have not only got onto the clothing but also the hands and knife of the killer. It could have been because of this that he threw the clothing on the fire after he had wiped himself. It would certainly have caused the blaze.

Best wishes.

Hatchett

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
What I have always endeavoured to bring up on Casebook since day one , is food for thought, using as a tool any snippit I can find to enhance any ''speculative'' explanation.
When any of us first joined Casebook[ at least the majority] we all gained are initial knowlege of the case from the basic facts that are repeated in every publication by every writer, but the introduction of ''press reports'' has given us access to many forms of interpretation, and If I am lucky enough to come across a intresting angle then it will be put up for comment.
The article in the Times report[ Nov 12th] is intresting , for it is unique in the fact that it disputes Kellys T.O.D , also forwards a suggestion that kellys velvet jacket, and a bonnet were apparently burnt because of blood staining.
I always had the opinion that kelly did not own a bonnet, and it was for this reason the claim ''she never wore one'' proberly came about, however I suspect that she wore the bonnet Harvey left out on the thursday night[ when Prater saw her].
I also believe that nickname 'Black Mary'' came about by her often wearing a black velvet jacket.
One aspect of that Times report I admit to finding odd is the claim that Mrs Maxwell saw kelly with a man ''Up the court'' which of course contridicts her inquest statement as being outside 'Ringers'
So to be fair one could use that as a negative , for the reliability of the article, but I still find it fascinating.
One more point many on Casebook tend to reject Maxwell as not a liar, but mistaken either on identity, or time, the wrong person, right day is given as a explanation.
I therfore mention the other sightings.
A unnamed young woman''who informed the police'' that she saw the dead woman alive in Dorset street at around 830am on the 9th.
NOTE.. 'she informed the police'
And also Maurice Lewis, who told the press that he saw Mary leave her room at 8aam, returning to it shortly afterwards with Milk.
I have a ''niggling'' feeling this story was muddled. and was confused with Maxwell returning with Milk,and its quite possible that he did witness Mary leave her room, and he did also see her conversation with Maxwell, at the court entrance, and also saw the latter walk by the entrance carrying her milk, and it got muddled.
The main reason why I believe Maurice Lewis saw something,. is his admittance, that he was involved in an illegal game of pitch to the press, this is rather like saying 'I was just about to enter the house via the window to steal , when I saw.....
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Hatchett,
Let me give you my personal interpretation of events that night.
Kelly ventures out around 9pm on the thursday night wearing her velvet jacket, and most likely the bonnet belonging to Harvey[ I believe Praters account] she returns home with Blotchy around midnight who escorts her home...nothing more, and leaves straight away.
Mrs Cox I would say speculated.
Kelly starts to sing much to the annoyance of at least one resident.
Mary ventures out in a stupid attempt to obtain some money, not only to get Mccarthy off her back , but to be able to have some funds for the lord mayors show the following day.
As she ventures up Commercial street , she spots a friend of hers George Hutchinson, and knowing he was a soft touch asks for money, and he obliges with sixpence, he in return asks her for a favour, as he was too late to get into the Victoria home, could he stay in her room until daybreak.
She agrees and they walk back together to the court, as they approached the entrance, he notices a man standing opposite , George stares at him , only to be looked at 'sternly', they then enter the court.
Not long after Mrs Lewis walks down Dorset street, and also observes this man , who was short and stout., apparently looking up the court.
This man was JTR....
When in the room Mary lays down on her bed and falls asleep, whilst HUTCH the perfect gent beds down on the floor[ mayby with the bolster type object seen on her table as a headrest.
Around 4am Mary cries out 'Oh Murder' and alarms Hutch, they both realise she was having a reoccurence of a bad dream she had recently had, and she is reassured as George is present.
Around 615am, he leaves the room, and closes the door behind him, leaving Mary alive and asleep.
The man across the street is gone.
Around 745am Mrs pickett knocks on Marys door ,it is raining, and she wanted to borrow her maroon shawl, she notices a light in her room, which was the fire lit by George before leaving to warm the room up for the sleeping kelly, that is why she knocked believing her to be up.
The knock awoken Mary, but she ignored the knock, and Mrs P moved on.
Kelly began to feel sick, and put on her crossover and ventured into Dorset street, and vomited, shortly after met Caroline Maxwell, and a conversation started.
The words'I have the horrors of drink as i have been drinking for some days past' has always been interpreted as a hangover... how about the reason for that cry of 'Oh Murder' which according to a report some three years after was the subject of a dream that kelly had experience that indeed she was being murdered.
Maxwell.. some short time later, sights Mary talking to a short, stout man, outside 'Ringers' ....the same man that had been watching the court at 230, the same man, that had gone to Marys room, whilst she was venturing up Commercial street, and finding her not in, decided to wait, only to find she was returning with a young man, who was not about to leave in a hurry.
They talk, and she returns to her room, by then its around 9am, she places the kettle of water over the fire, dresses down to her chemise, rolls up her bed blankets in a roll, and places her jacket and bonnet on the bed, and sits down . then she has a visitor.... knock
she puts on her velvet jacket and opens the door, foolishly she allows him inside, he graps her by the throat and mouth pushes her to the far corner [ nearest the partition] and cuts her throat.
I could go on and on, but what I am suggesting is Hutchinsons account is ficticious, he after learning, that his friend Kelly had been murdered around 4am on the morning of the 9th, knowing that he was in that room at that time, knowing that he was there when she cried out ' Murder', and knowing that he left her alive, he felt paronoid that he may have been seen with her at any time , and he then remembered that he had seen a man loitering opposite the court, and he could use that person as himself, and invent a well to do person, so that his excuse of ''being curious'' was acceptable, thus enter 'Astracan'.
All of what I have just mentioned was 'self preservation' and who can blame him.
Why come foreward...mayby he knew he had been seen with Mary, and that story was his insurance. against a rope.
And last , but not least, why did the kettle fall apart?
Poor Mary was in no shape to remove it onced boiled.
The above scenerio/scenerios, are just an interpretation of what could have happened,
ahh...what about the remains of fish and potatoes, wher did they come from.
Answer Hutch bought them in Thrawl street before he encountered kelly, and she ate her share of them, after she had returned to her room around 815am , before venturing out to encounter the short/ stout man.
What happened to Hutchinsons sixpence?
Her killer took it, after going through her pockets like the others.
The above is an exercise how it is possible to use ones imagination to conjure up many different explanations, then what is normally excepted..
And it will certainly please the anti Hutchinsons.
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

Hello Kensai,

Well, I was rather thinking of a shawl over the head and concealing most of the face.( Mind you, there weren´t the hair-removing products around then that there are today! (lol)

Best wishes,
C4

[babybird67]

is it possible...

that as well as for heat and light there may have been the added motivation of destroying yet another part of Mary? He took her identity, or attempted to, by mutilating her, and destroying her clothing was just another layer of the process of 'stripping' her and everything that defined her?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

That is quite plausable Baby Bird. Sort of destroying the inside and the out. A final degrading destruction. You may have something there.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hi Richard,

That is very interesting and imaginitive scenario. Not what I subscribe to. But hell, what do I know. We are all playing around with different scanarios.

I am not convinsed at all that the killer needed light. I believe the fire had already been lit before he entered the room. The blaze is the key I think.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

I am not convinsed at all that the killer needed light. I believe the fire had already been lit before he entered the room. The blaze is the key I think.

I think it was Abberline who suggested the clothes were burned for light. Apparently, evidence was found that MJK had recently bought a candle and that the half-burned, or partly burned, candle found in the room was the one in question.
Abberline's supposition being, I think, that if the killer had used the candle for light it would have been more consumed than it was. Hence, the "burning clothes for light" scenario.
All this of course hinges on her time of death. If she was killed in the morning possibly less need for light, at night, more need for light.
The windows appear to have been totally covered cutting any outside light from entering the room.

There was a pale (bucket?) in the corner of the room. No mention of what was in it, whether for coal, or used as a bed-pan, we don't know.
Apparently her floor was not stone, but wood, so this leaves open the possibility that a coal-cellar existed underneath.
My point is, I don't know what MJK would have used for a fire if she could afford to make one every night.
Some contemporary news reports inform us that the poorest class would gather up horse droppings from the street, let them dry and use it for fuel for the fire.
Can you imagine the smell....

Regards, Jon S.

[ChainzCooper]

'The key and burnt clothes puzzle them haha'
Jordan

[Fleetwood Mac]

Although JTR was a risk taker, I don't believe he would have allowed light to shine from the room and risk people knocking at the door to sit with Mary to keep warm. Also, I don't believe that JTR would have attempted to destory evidence - there was no need.

Which leaves me with two options:

1) There was no fire that night.

2) Mary started the fire for warmth and to dry clothes, possibly not only hers. JTR killed her and promptly threw her damp clothes on the fire in an attempt to put the fire out and prevent the room being lit up. This one may tie in with a punter who has paid for the night e.g. Blotchy.

[Wickerman]

'The key and burnt clothes puzzle them haha'
Jordan

There was no missing key, it had been lost some time before the 9th (excuse the oxymoron).
Barnet explained they use to open the door by pushing back the latch by reaching through the broken window.

[ChainzCooper]

Maybe there was maybe there wasn't. The killer would be proud we're still confused over things over a century later
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

There was no missing key, it had been lost some time before the 9th (excuse the oxymoron).
Barnet explained they use to open the door by pushing back the latch by reaching through the broken window.

The key was not missing? The door was broken into hours after the body of Kelly was discovered. If the door was not locked by the key the Police would have just pushed back the latch through the window and opened the door (Like you said). So either Kelly had her key or got another key. Or Barnett is lying and panicked because he has the key and made up the story about it being lost. I'll go with the first option
Jordan