Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[The Rookie Detective]

Thats right, it doesn't produce a steady light to work with, it's like a sudden flareup then it's gone.

Precisely. Which would indicate the killer was trying to destroy evidence rather than use the light to kill. He worked in relative darkness for previous murders, so why need a light now? If anything, he may have tried to STOP the flames because the light may have drawn attention to the room.

I don't buy the idea that he needed light to work with. It's more likely that the killer discarded items into the fire for destruction purposes. But it had to be something that he felt he couldn't take WITH him when he left.

What would he need to destroy that he couldn't take with him?

Perhaps her heart or her unborn fetus?

No evidence for either of those, but my point is that IF he did discard clothing into the fire, there had to be a good reason to do so.

Perhaps there was evidence on the clothing that may have linked him to the murder and he needed to destroy the items to cover his back.


RD

[Wickerman]

The article went on to say the police believed it to have ben a daylight murder.., Maybe Kelly was wearing those articles when attacked ? and the killer did not wish the authorities to think that , according to Prater Kelly was wearing a jacket and bonnet at 9pm Thursday evening,?
Regards Richard

The convention for young prostitutes was to wear a bonnet when they are not 'available', to walk around bare headed at night was 'open for business'.
This, for some reason was not observed by the more casual prostitutes, usually older women.

[Wickerman]

yes they flamed up and burnt immediately

Thats right, it doesn't produce a steady light to work with, it's like a sudden flareup then it's gone.

[Mark J D]

I think that the evidence with the items found partially burned [etc]

Michael, as a guy who's capable of independent thinking, have you ever applied yourself to consideration of the melted kettle and how it fits into this chaotic picture?

I'd be interested to hear how it looks to you.

Mark D.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that the evidence with the items found partially burned, (the hat/fabric) is relevant in that they were not consumed by fire, they were partially burned. Which would indicate that they likely were thrown on the smouldering ashes but without expectation that they would induce a larger flame. So its my opinion that they were not put there to aid in lighting up the immediate area. Perhaps just in the hopes the heat remaining might destroy them beyond recognition. Abberline and a few other men went back to that room Saturday morning to sieve the ashes again. One wonders whether they thought some trace evidence of something other than what was already found might still be there. Makes me think it would be a small sample of something if there, so what sort of things might still be recognizable when in smallish, partial form?

On the discussion about whether having a suspect in mind is good or bad, Id say that it depends on what crime you have a suspect for. Its long been a tradition in this study to have people set on someone then to try and find some linkage to the Canonical Group murder victims or match the geographical data from those crimes. I dont believe any of these crimes can have any hope of being solved until each is evaluated and analyzed independently.

Assuming a kill total and then looking for someone who might fit is as a Suspect for all of them is potentially following a red herring. If we have a viable suspect for any of these murders individually, then see if they can be suspected in any other murder of that time and area. Not all of the Canonicals, because the Canonical Group is not an established kill total for anyone, its a suspected, presumed, or speculative total.

[Aethelwulf]

Agreed in the sense there's nothing wrong with having a suspect.

But, none of them are 'game enders', in the words of the Mark.

I'd also say there are people that take it to the other extreme of dismissing every single possible 'clue' as it were.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Nothing wrong with having suspect problem is when it's taken to extremes with lech.

Agreed in the sense there's nothing wrong with having a suspect.

But, none of them are 'game enders', in the words of the Mark.

[Aethelwulf]

I'd say the people who have been looking at this case for decades and are clearly the most knowledgeable, both on this board and JTR Forums, do not promote a suspect.

That would suggest it's not 'a game' for them, but more an interesting pastime, including the research aspect.

The flaw doesn't lie with those people; the flaw lies in the other people who think they have a 'game-ender'.

It's absolutely barking mad to think you know who committed these crimes given there isn't one suspect out there who can be linked to the crimes in any meaningful way.

Nothing wrong with having suspect problem is when it's taken to extremes with lech.

[John Wheat]

I'd say the people who have been looking at this case for decades and are clearly the most knowledgeable, both on this board and JTR Forums, do not promote a suspect.

That would suggest it's not 'a game' for them, but more an interesting pastime, including the research aspect.

The flaw doesn't lie with those people; the flaw lies in the other people who think they have a 'game-ender'.

It's absolutely barking mad to think you know who committed these crimes given there isn't one suspect out there who can be linked to the crimes in any meaningful way.

I disagree and think you should take a careful look at William Henry Bury. I'm not saying he was definitely the Ripper but he's the best suspect by a country mile.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Paragraph of the Year, I'd say.

And Lechmere Derangement Syndrome explained in two deeply insightful sentences.

When the point is to continue the game, who wants a suspect who's not simply a game-changer, but a game-ender?

M.

I'd say the people who have been looking at this case for decades and are clearly the most knowledgeable, both on this board and JTR Forums, do not promote a suspect.

That would suggest it's not 'a game' for them, but more an interesting pastime, including the research aspect.

The flaw doesn't lie with those people; the flaw lies in the other people who think they have a 'game-ender'.

It's absolutely barking mad to think you know who committed these crimes given there isn't one suspect out there who can be linked to the crimes in any meaningful way.

[Aethelwulf]

If it was done in the morning, realistically how long would it have taken the killer to come out of her room, close the door quietly and walk the short distance down the court and then out into the busier Dorset street and likely unnoticed? Under 10 seconds probably.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The article went on to say the police believed it to have ben a daylight murder.., Maybe Kelly was wearing those articles when attacked ? and the killer did not wish the authorities to think that , according to Prater Kelly was wearing a jacket and bonnet at 9pm Thursday evening,?
Regards Richard

I reckon the medical evidence suggests something entirely different, Richard.

It looks very much like Mary was in bed when attacked with somebody lying beside her.

[richardnunweek]

Given the infancy of forensic analysis in the 19th century, Richard, I can't think of any reasonable suggestion, nor any reasonable suggestion as to why the police would have concluded that.

I'd be interested to hear someone else's reasonable suggestion, however.

The article went on to say the police believed it to have ben a daylight murder.., Maybe Kelly was wearing those articles when attacked ? and the killer did not wish the authorities to think that , according to Prater Kelly was wearing a jacket and bonnet at 9pm Thursday evening,?
Regards Richard

[The Rookie Detective]

I've just read a fascinating newspaper article that compares Maria Harvey's manner at the inquest to a certain 'Mrs Gamp'; the comedic over-enthusiastic untrained alcoholic nurse-type character from Martin Chuzzlewit.

It reads as follows...

"In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the court had its one amusing witness. She was the Mrs. Gamp of the day, and when she and the coroner got at loggerheads over the question as to whether certain articles of apparel were two shirts belonging to one man or one man's two shirts, there was general laughter at Mrs Harvey's decisive dogmatism of manner"


Take from that what you will


RD

[Mark J D]

Apparently lech killed chapman in that location to cast suspicion on the Paul.

Edward Stow's thought, as far as I know.

Hard to resist, in my view...






M.