The Night She Died

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
was it Doris?
I haven't my Blanket sourcebook handy.

Thanks in advance,
Amitiés

[Roy Corduroy]

I would suggest, she was responsible for the blanket rolled back, as in making the bed upon getting up.

Hi Richard,

I have started a new thread on the subject called Maxwell's Gal. Here in the Kelly section. Stop by if you can.

Roy

[perrymason]

A couple of things.....as Sam has suggested before, and accurately so I believe, we (collectively) have no way to substantiate a story of clothing "neatly folded." I believe it does appear that the bolster and bedding were in their place folded, or rolled. I dont see that being something the killer would do myself.

So its probably something like...she was about to do something with the bedding like ready the bed, she had already moved the bedding herself and had been sleeping, or it was placed there when Blotchy visited, and not put back on.

For those who favor a "spout melting" evening, consider the ambient temperature in a 10 x 10 when direct heat melts a soldered connection. How much bedding did she need that night? I believe the room temperature is a factor on TOD by medical opinion.

Best regards all.

[Chava]

Michael, wasn't the fire built and maintained at high heat by the killer? All kinds of stuff was burning on it by the time he'd finished. But if Kelly was by herself, or even if she was expecting or entertaining a guest, I doubt she'd start burning other women's possessions to keep warm.

November in the UK is not generally a warm month. It's getting dark by around 4.30 pm. or earlier And it was raining on the 9th. I spent years and years in London and I'm here to tell you that it feels much colder there on a raw November evening than it does on a below-zero Toronto day. There's a wet wind on days like that goes through you like a knife. I honestly believe she'd need more than a sheet and a blanket to keep her even a little bit warm.

[Sam Flynn]

How do you know it was 'neatly placed'?

I've already explained what I meant by that - and I'm about to repeat it for the second time: "neatly placed as opposed to roughly rolled up and chucked there". I don't "know" it - I'm just putting into words what my eyes tell me.

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm not quite sure how relevent this is but coal fires were bloody dangerous and nobody would go to bed unless the fire was out, or more or less out, because one spark spitting out could burn the house down while you slept.

[perrymason]

I'm not quite sure how relevent this is but coal fires were bloody dangerous and nobody would go to bed unless the fire was out, or more or less out, because one spark spitting out could burn the house down while you slept.

Hi Stephen,

To address your point above, and Chava's comments regarding the fire....what we do know is that the kettle spout had its connection melted, and that 2 items of clothing were found in the ashes, attributed to the missing bonnet and skirt of Maria Harveys laundry client.

Abberline suggested the fire was hot enough to melt the spout, and that the clothes items were added to it...not that they formed the foundation of a brand new fire. My personal opinion... based on Marias testimony that they spent all afternoon in Marys room, that she gave Mary a few coins, and that Mary obviously has a tin bath that could be used for laundry, ....is that they washed Maria's clients clothes together...and had a fire going to boil water with the kettle. If any clothes were actually neatly folded, my bet is it was the laundry items.

Whether the fire was coal, wood...less likely, dung, or whatever the fuel source, I believe the items burned were added to it.....which is one reason why some fabric remnants survived, they were placed on a low, existing fire.

Thats my guess anyway....and its the reason I doubt that there was any blazing inferno in that room that night. Meaning.... I dont believe he placed the clothes on the fire for light.

Best regards all.

[Chava]

I've already explained what I meant by that - and I'm about to repeat it for the second time: "neatly placed as opposed to roughly rolled up and chucked there". I don't "know" it - I'm just putting into words what my eyes tell me.

But if you see a photo of a rolled-up/folded-up blanket on the side of a bed, resting against the wall, how do you know how it got there? You only have the photograph and nothing else. If it was, say, a wooden box on a table, you might have a better chance at determining whether the box was placed or thrown because if it was thrown, given that it has hard edges, it might have scratched or dented the table. But this is a blanket on a bed. No chance of the blanket denting the bed or scratching the wall or whatever. Yes, it could have been carefully placed there, but it could equally well have been rolled/thrown away, hit the wall or hit the body and gravity brings it down into the slight valley between the wall and the bed.

You have no way of knowing how that blanket got there. You bring your own impressions and ideas into play to explain how it got there. That's perfectly fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me. But I am pointing out that neither of us can prove to the other the veracity of our beliefs. There is no point in telling me over and over that 'your eyes tell you' that the blanket was placed there. I've looked closely at the picture, and to me that blanket looks like it was treated exactly the way I described earlier. Bottom to top, sides to middle, rolled. To you it looks folded. We have different perceptions of the same event. Unless we are standing in that room and looking at that blanket and how it lies and what that white thing I think is a stocking is, we will never find out the truth. So let me know when you find a time-machine. Because #13 Millers Court is a room I would dearly love to see. And then we can argue from strength!

[perrymason]

Chava and Sam.....I addressed this very problem recently, and the facts are,... that unless someone is provably wrong, the most you can do is just disagree. Cause when either side cannot be proven... neither are an answer yet.

Best regards chaps.

[Nemo]

It seems an obvious scenario to me that Mary cleared her bed of her normal sheets etc and prepared it for a night of whoring. In doing this she would probably only retain a washable sheet or two and pillows on the bed. Even the bolster cum bedroll may have been an aid to her being in certain sexual positions depending on the clients wishes ie "doggie style" or anal sex with Mary on the bed leaning over the bolster.

Just because she was on the bed skimpily dressed does not imply that she was asleep or even attempting to sleep.

I see no reason why a prostitute who offers a service inside a room where she can comfortably strip for the client, perhaps accompanied by song, would not get dressed again and venture out to find the next client. Because of the rain, she would be sensible enough to place her clothes by the fire while she was servicing the current client. She may have been required to do this several times during the night - as I think Mary was.

Her reason for whoring all night, other than her immediate financial difficulties, may have been that she wanted to attend the Lord Mayor's show without the pressure of having to prostitute herself through the day. Other prostitutes were looking forward to the possibilities of financial gain the following day.

[perrymason]

Theres nothing wrong with supposing that Mary was all set to entertain clients by the bedding and her dress Nemo, its just that we don't have any evidence that she ever did that in that room, let alone on a night when the last official sighting of her is before midnight, and the rain became heavy shortly after that.

Mary entertaining clients is a crap shoot, and theres nothing we know of that would support it...other than opinion she would have done so, or that she was concerned about her arrears being called in the next morning, or as you say, she wanted Mayors Day money. All pure speculation because no evidence exists to support any of them.

Seems to me she left her room basically broke on the 8th, and yet came home staggering drunk, and likely fed regardless,...so why work in rain when its pretty clear she can get money for just being herself.

Best regards.

[perrymason]

added to the last post....

I believe only Blotchy Face is on record of going to Marys room, other than the "Joe's", and if he was a client, I would think the evidence suggests it was as an audience for a songstress. Mary sang off and on for over an hour.

Cheers

[perrymason]

added to the last post....

I believe only Blotchy Face is on record going to Marys room with Mary, other than the "Joe's", and if he was a client, I would think the evidence suggests it was as an audience for a songstress. Mary sang off and on for over an hour.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

But if you see a photo of a rolled-up/folded-up blanket on the side of a bed, resting against the wall, how do you know how it got there?

I don't - but any reasonable person can tell that it wasn't flung there with gay abandon. No time machine required, Chava. The photo is enough.

[Chava]

I don't - but any reasonable person can tell that it wasn't flung there with gay abandon. No time machine required, Chava. The photo is enough.

I don't think I used the word 'flung', Gareth. I said 'rolled'. I think any reasonable person would walk away from this right now. So I will let you have the thing most important to you in life--the last word. I know how highly you value it.