The fire in the grate...

[paul emmett]

Did the killer burn them? I think yes

Aside from the clothes Mary wore that night, what else did she own, and keep in that room? Dont know.
Did the killer burn them to cover up burning something else first? In other words, were they added to create heat to burn something else? Possible
Was there ever a bright fire that night? Not one that was noticeable

Hello Michael, all.

I too think the killer burned them. The clothes couldn't have all been burned a while back because then the ashes would have to be cold, so Abberline wouldn't have thought there had been a fire at all.

What else did she own? I find it interesting that Abberline says, "I have taken an inventory of what was in the room," and then in the same sentence goes on to say, "there had been a large fire . . .." Does this suggest that there wasn't much to inventory cuz it had all been burned?

Cover up something else? For me, either that or the clothes burned were themselves evidence. MJK's clothes by the fire seem conspicuously avoided.

Large fire? Not before three.

I thought Harvey's overcoat was covering the broken window in Kelly's room.

[jerryd]

I thought Harvey's overcoat was covering the broken window in Kelly's room.

Here is one account from the Daily Telegraph. Other papers have similar accounts, I just happened to pick this one.

"Maria Harvey, 3, New-court, Dorset-street, stated: I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly. I slept at her house on Monday night and on Tuesday night. All the afternoon of Thursday we were together.

Were you in the house when Joe Barnett called ? - Yes. I said, "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again," and I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crêpe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girl's white petticoat.

Have you seen any of these articles since ? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."


jerryd

[CitizenX]

Hello Michael, all.

I too think the killer burned them. The clothes couldn't have all been burned a while back because then the ashes would have to be cold, so Abberline wouldn't have thought there had been a fire at all.

Who said the ashes were warm?

The room wasn't broken into until 1.30pm which is maybe 8hrs after the fire had ended...maybe longer.

Coals could possibly still have some heat but clothes? i'm not so sure. Anyway i'm sure I read somewhere that Abberline sifted the ashes the next day, on the Saturday.

kevin

[CitizenX]

Have you seen any of these articles since ? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."

Hi Jerry,

This is good question and another strange case.....the newspaper quote is directly from the inquest testimony btw.

Maria mentions she saw the overcoat in a room in the court not in Marys room. Either somebody took it before the murder or the police didn't lock down the crime scene and somebody took it....but theres one thing about this murder we do know...the Police were more on the ball and did lock down the scene till late afternoon. Even then they padlocked the door and left 2 constables to watch....how did the coat disappear?

Kevin

[paul emmett]

Here is one account from the Daily Telegraph. Other papers have similar accounts, I just happened to pick this one.

[
Were you in the house when Joe Barnett called ? - Yes. I said, "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again," and I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crêpe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girl's white petticoat.[/I]

Have you seen any of these articles since ? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon."


jerryd

Hi, jerryd.

Evans and Skinner's transcription of the Inquest from THE TIMES has the exact same listing of clothes left at MJK's, but here Harvey goes on to say, "I have seen nothing of them since, except the overcoat produced to me by the police." Could your reference mean Courthouse?

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

This is good question and another strange case.....the newspaper quote is directly from the inquest testimony btw.

Maria mentions she saw the overcoat in a room in the court not in Marys room. Either somebody took it before the murder or the police didn't lock down the crime scene and somebody took it....but theres one thing about this murder we do know...the Police were more on the ball and did lock down the scene till late afternoon. Even then they padlocked the door and left 2 constables to watch....how did the coat disappear?

Kevin

Thanks Kevin,

My thoughts exactly.

There are other possibilities on how the coat left.
1) The killer removed it.
2) The police had a room they used as a makeshift crime lab and Maria was called in to identify the jacket.

This is probably best left for a thread of it's own. I am sorry to infringe on the topic. Maybe I'll start the "Maria Harvey and the black overcoat" thread again since it was lost.

Again my apologies to the OP.

jerryd

[perrymason]

Nice too see you JD. And I think Pauls suggestion of a capital letter is the answer to your question on where "in the court" meant..."in the Court".

Cheers JD

[paul emmett]

Who said the ashes were warm?

Hello, Kevin. If the ashes weren't warm, why would Abberline even think there had been a fire. A burned off spout could have just been laying there forever.

[jerryd]

Nice too see you JD. And I think Pauls suggestion of a capital letter is the answer to your question on where "in the court" meant..."in the Court".

Cheers JD

Hi Michael,

Nice to see you again as well.

It is a good thought, but I personally don't buy it considering the murder took place in "the court". It still leaves the question, why were all or most of the clothes Maria brought to the room burned, except for this overcoat?

jerryd

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jerry,

It is a good thought, but I personally don't buy it.

Whether it was in the court-room or Miller's Court, it doesn't really matter - the key thing to note is that Harvey was shown the garment by the police.

Policeman A: Is this your overcoat, Mr Barnett?
Joe Barnett: No, sir.
Policeman A: (Thinks) It might be the killer's!

Later...

Maria H: ...leaving behind a black crepe bonnet, a shawl and a black overcoat.
Policeman B: A black overcoat, you said?
Maria H: Yes. A black overcoat.
Policeman B: Ere, George! Miss Harvey says she left a black overcoat in the room!
Policeman A: Is this the coat you left behind, Miss?
Maria H: Yes, it is, sir.
Policeman A: (Thinks) Bang goes my commendation

It still leaves the question, why were all or most of the clothes Maria brought to the room burned, except for this overcoat?

We don't know that they were burned - all we know is that the police showed only the overcoat to Maria Harvey, the implication being that they may have seen it as a clue. The police may not have perceived much of a "lead" in a pile of children's clothing and miscellaneous other laundry.

[c.d.]

Is it possible that the overcoat because of its size might have smothered the fire?

c.d.

[CitizenX]

Hello, Kevin. If the ashes weren't warm, why would Abberline even think there had been a fire. A burned off spout could have just been laying there forever.

Sorry Paul,

I'm not disputing that there was a large amount of clothing burnt , the remnants of which were quite visible in the fireplace. I just dont believe it would still be warm 10hrs later.

Kevin

[perrymason]

Hey Jerry,

Im not so sure there was any great load of laundry brought over in the first place, The London Times of Nov 13th says she claimed she "...left the house on Thursday evening, leaving several articles in the deceased's care, including sheets, an overcoat and a bonnet. She had not seen any of the articles except the overcoat since."

In another I read two cotton shirts were recovered. Im trawling through press from Saturday on to see what else is mentioned..but its always interesting to see how much of the early reporting is based on unsubstantiated witnesses. However, in quite a few press articles it mentions clearly that Mary Ann Cox saw candlelight in Marys room when her and Blotchy first went in, and noticed it was out when she returned after leaving just after 1am.

Cheers.

[CitizenX]

Cheers Sam,

You've just proven that regardless of how many wildcat theories and ideas I come up with..the most obvious one is there in front of me...and completely overlooked..

I hate you sometimes!!

Kevin

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,Whether it was in the court-room or Miller's Court, it doesn't really matter - the key thing to note is that Harvey was shown the garment by the police.

Sam,

It would make a huge difference if Maria saw the coat in a room in Miller's court before the police knew about it. Then they question her the whereabouts of the coat, retrieve it and say, is this the coat? That implies that Harvey was shown the garment by the police.

But it could also mean the killer or someone else entered that room in the court after murdering Mary, and left before the police came leaving behind the coat. It could be a huge clue.

Are ya following me?