The burnt clothing

[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?

[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

[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...

[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]

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

[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

[The Good Michael]

Roast heart anyone?

Mike

[Phil H]

Yummy!!

[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!

[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

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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!