The fire in the grate...

[paul emmett]

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.

Either do I; that's why I don't think that the fire IS 10hrs earlier.

Sorry, Kevin. I think we are missing each other. I'm not disputing the amount or the visibility of the clothes either. All I'm saying is that I don't believe that the fire was a long time back, since then the ashes would not be warm, and if Abberline just found cold ashes, clothes remenants and a burnt off spout, he would have no call to even bring the fire up, since all this could have been left from a fire days back.

jerryd, I agree: which court makes a big difference. That's why we have to try to reconcile THE TIMES and the other report you quoted earlier. What do you think?

bolo, interesting point about the bricks. Would the warm bricks outlast the warm ashes? I'm just not sure.

Kevin, Thanks for the help.

You do have a question worth asking in your post Kevin, and that is why was the ash still warm when Abberline feels it after 1:30pm? I think the more we delve into the likely articles of clothing that were burned, it will just be the hat and the skirt/jacket fabric found after sieving. I do not believe there was enough clothing there to build or maintain a "large" fire, based on what remains in the room.

And I dont believe a large bright fire would have ash still warm to the touch maybe 8 hours later.

The heat and brightness vary by the fuel used, as does the fires duration....and a low burning fire, using fossil fuels, could have stayed warm that long. And thats precisely the kind of fire they would have wanted to heat water for the wash Thursday.

Wood would have been expensive, coal cheap, dung free, and paper burns to cold ash in seconds.

However, would soaking fabric in kerosene prolong the flame a bit, enough to be useful as light? And don't ask why would someone be carrying kerosene around....cause a man is taken in shortly after Marys murder on suspicion, while carrying chloroform on his person. Something I always thought would answer the way he gets their "co-operation" without noise or struggles.

And on Marys candle, she had purchased it that week, and it was half burnt when investigators took over the room.

Cheers all.

[jerryd]

Sorry Double posted somehow.

[bolo]

Personally I never had a problem to explain the clothes in Mary's possession, Barnett gave them to her because he did not have any cash money and wanted to have her something she could pawn or sell. The question for me is wether the killer burnt them or they somehow ended up in the fireplace before Mary's death for god knows what reasons.

It's possible that some of the clothes Joe gave her were too worn out to be sold or worn so Mary decidet to burn them.

Maybe there were just a few pieces left lying in a heap next to the fireplace when the killer entered the room and lit the fire, either to burn evidence or get more light. He needed something to get the fire going so he took the crêpe bonnet (which makes a good tinder), threw it in the fireplace with some smoldering remains of the last fire, blew gently on the glow, et voilà.

About the warmth of the ashes on the morning after the murder, the ashes itself may have been quite cold already but the heat of the fire must have warmed the bricks of the fireplace, and it's not unreasonable to believe they were still warm when Abberline entered the room at 1:30pm. As a contemporary of the LVP, he surely could tell an unused fireplace from a recently used one.

[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?

[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

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]

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

[c.d.]

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

c.d.

[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.

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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?