Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Michael W Richards]

I've always thought it a decent chance that the fire was burning to an extent while Mary was out.

We know that in the Victorian era these people's rooms/houses were freezing. This was November.

Mary Cox goes home to warm her hands for a few minutes. On what? Her room would have been freezing without a fire.

Mary Cox saw a light in Mary's room as Blotchy and Mary went inside, we are told by journalists (I think, 'can't quite remember) that Mary's room was barely illuminated by a candle. Mary Cox infers that the light was of a nature that she would have been able to see into Mary's room had the blinds not being down. Would a candle have been sufficient given what reporters said?

And then, we don't leave a fire burning while we're out because we have central heating. In Victorian times, even the wealthy had freezing homes which is why they put on so many layers, including stockings and the like.

If I am anywhere near correct about my washing suggestion, a sustained fire all afternoon wouldnt take much to be re-ignited. I think at the very least Mary came home to a simmering fire at 11:45 Thursday night, and as she had company, maybe tossed on something to warm that visit. It seems like a visit to me, she was heard singing off and on for over an hour, not traditionally what a paying for sex client would be getting.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If I am anywhere near correct about my washing suggestion, a sustained fire all afternoon wouldnt take much to be re-ignited.

That's what they did in Victorian times. They kept the fire burning all day because it was used for everything, heating, hot water and so on, and it was a nuisance to light the fire again.

But, whether Mary had the means to keep a fire going for the most of the day is another matter.

It wouldn't have been kept going for washing specifically, but for every reason that Victorians needed a fire.

[Michael W Richards]

I mentioned the washing because of Maria Harveys presence in Marys room that afternoon, the fact that she acknowledged some of the clothing found in the room was her clients, and that washtub. It doesnt seem to be pushed back out of sight, just shoved under the bed. The fire, the pump, the clothes, Maria clients clothes, and the fact Maria gives Mary a coin before leaving. Just sayin..

[Wickerman]

I mentioned the washing because of Maria Harveys presence in Marys room that afternoon, the fact that she acknowledged some of the clothing found in the room was her clients, and that washtub. It doesnt seem to be pushed back out of sight, just shoved under the bed. The fire, the pump, the clothes, Maria clients clothes, and the fact Maria gives Mary a coin before leaving. Just sayin..

Perfectly reasonable...

[Michael W Richards]

Perfectly reasonable...

I think I need a drink now, getting agreement here is kind of disorienting.

[The Rookie Detective]

So is there a chance that Maria & Mary had gone into running a little washerwoman business from out of 13 Millers Court?
I.e. Maria sources the clothes and takes them to Mary who uses the water source outside her room and the fire in her room to heat the water to wash the clothes.

The fact that Maria claims to have left soiled clothing items in the room would suggest that Mary intended to wash them on behalf of Maria i.e.for a client.

And the fact that not all of the items were found in the room with the body, also confirms that the clothes were either burnt in the fireplace OR were taken away by the killer for whatever reason.

Why would the killer burn the clothes?

Well...what if JTR WAS Maria's client?

Maria brings the clothes to Miller's Court and leaves the items in the room after Barnett appears and she leaves. Why would she leave the items if Mary wasn't planning on washing them?

Imagine this scenario...

Maria brings the soiled clothes...but some, if not all of the items belong to the killer... In other words, the clothing acts as incriminating evidence and the killer goes to the room to pick them up/dispose of them.

What if MJK noticed some blood on a shirt and then questioned the person who came to pick them up, not realizing that she was talking to the ripper?

In other words...could Maria's act of bringing the clothes to the room and leaving them there be the reason why MJK was murdered?

What if Maria Harvey was the intended target and not MJK?


The killer had no choice but to burn the clothes because they linked him to his crimes?


Thoughts please?


RD

[Wickerman]

Have you thrown old clothes on a fire to see what happens?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I mentioned the washing because of Maria Harveys presence in Marys room that afternoon, the fact that she acknowledged some of the clothing found in the room was her clients, and that washtub. It doesnt seem to be pushed back out of sight, just shoved under the bed. The fire, the pump, the clothes, Maria clients clothes, and the fact Maria gives Mary a coin before leaving. Just sayin..

It's as good as any other suggestion, Michael.

The only point I would make is that in the Victorian era, they kept fires going for most of the day because that fire was needed for many things, and lighting the fire more than once was a nuisance in those days.

And so, the fire may have been used for many things that day, including washing.

We would of course have to demonstrate that Mary had the means to keep a fire going most of the day.

[etenguy]

It's as good as any other suggestion, Michael.

The only point I would make is that in the Victorian era, they kept fires going for most of the day because that fire was needed for many things, and lighting the fire more than once was a nuisance in those days.

And so, the fire may have been used for many things that day, including washing.

We would of course have to demonstrate that Mary had the means to keep a fire going most of the day.

Hi Fleetwood and Michael

The information we have is that Maria Harvey was the laundress rather than Mary Jane Kelly but I suppose MJK might help on occasion.

More interestingly to me is that the clothes Maria left at 13 Miller's Court fit the description of the remains of clothes Abberline describes as finding in the fire grate. This leads me to speculate that Barnett threw the clothes on the fire in anger at finding Maria Harvey with MJK (he had left MJK because Harvey had been staying with her and considered her a bad influence). Just speculation but makes more sense to me than a murderer in full flow stopping to stoke a fire.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood and Michael

The information we have is that Maria Harvey was the laundress rather than Mary Jane Kelly but I suppose MJK might help on occasion.

More interestingly to me is that the clothes Maria left at 13 Miller's Court fit the description of the remains of clothes Abberline describes as finding in the fire grate. This leads me to speculate that Barnett threw the clothes on the fire in anger at finding Maria Harvey with MJK (he had left MJK because Harvey had been staying with her and considered her a bad influence). Just speculation but makes more sense to me than a murderer in full flow stopping to stoke a fire.

Well, according to Mary Cox there was a light in the room when Mary and Blotchy walked through the door, and according to Elizabeth Prater there was no light from the room at 1.30am. Mary Cox mentioned there was no light from the room at 3am.

In terms of how much light a candle would give, it's possible to overestimate that. Move an arm's length from a candle, and you're not getting much light at all, not sufficient to read. When Mary Cox suggests she would have been able to see into the room had the blinds not been down, I think that light was coming from more than a candle.

I'd say the fire was burning when Mary returned with Blotchy.

In the event Mary was still alive at 2am or whatever and went back out, then I reckon the reasonable bet is that fire would have been kept going, on a cold November night, until she retired to bed; just as it looks to me that she kept it going prior to returning with Blotchy. According to Mary Cox, there was no fire at 3am, which in turn suggests Mary was not out of her room at that time.

My estimate is that Mary didn't go back out again after 1am, nor was the fire ever rekindled, and the clothes were burned either before Mary returned with Blotchy or when she was in the room with Blotchy to keep them warm. I don't think Jack worked with a fire blazing.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Fleetwood and Michael

The information we have is that Maria Harvey was the laundress rather than Mary Jane Kelly but I suppose MJK might help on occasion.

More interestingsoiledly to me is that the clothes Maria left at 13 Miller's Court fit the description of the remains of clothes Abberline describes as finding in the fire grate. This leads me to speculate that Barnett threw the clothes on the fire in anger at finding Maria Harvey with MJK (he had left MJK because Harvey had been staying with her and considered her a bad influence). Just speculation but makes more sense to me than a murderer in full flow stopping to stoke a fire.

I find it just as likely that Barnett threw the clothes into the fire as either, the killer or MJK did.

It seems to me that Barnett was aggrieved by Maria Harvey's association with MJK and it seems likely that having stayed with MJK on Monday and Tuesday nights and all afternoon on the day MJK was murdered, MJK was spending a lot of time with Maria.

By leaving soiled clothes with MJK, it begs the question; Why didn't Maria do the washing herself seeing as she was a washerwoman? She had a room at 3 New Court in Dorset Street which was around the corner, so leaving the clothes with MJK would imply that MJK was helping Maria out, perhaps sharing the profits from washing clothes. MJK had a water supply outside her room and a fireplace for heating purposes. The combination of the water, heating and proximity made sense for Maria to ask MJK to keep the clothes at Millers Court.

And so, another question is; Where did the clothes go? They were either burnt in the fire, or taken by the killer. The reason for the latter would only be applicable if the soiled clothes belonged to the killer and he had come to Millers Court to get them back for whatever reason.
Were the soiled shirts evidence?

The killer had no reason to take them and so because they weren't there when the room was inspected, the clothes must have been burnt.

But why burn the clothing that Mara Harvey left? The clothing had nothing do to with MJK and they certainly didn't belong to her.

There was an item of boys and an item of girls clothing I believe? That would imply that the washing belonged to a man with children, a family man perhaps?

MJK wouldn't have burnt the clothing because presumably, they belonged to a paying customer.

Barnett would have little reason to throw a stranger's clothes into the fire out of anger to get back at MJK. I can understand him throwing MJK's clothing into the fire, but why soiled clothes belonging to another man?

It would make sense if the clothing was clean and returned by Maria to MJK because she was a washerwoman and would have cleaned the clothing to bring back to Millers Court...but the clothing was soiled and needed washing. Maria would not have returned dirty clothes unless she had a falling out with MJK and was returning the items out of frustration.

I think that Barnett is the easy option on which to place blame and a reason to tick the box regarding the clothing. But tying him to the clothing is like trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole...it doesn't fit.

The killer or MJK burnt the clothes, the reason behind the action is one thing, but the action is still as important a factor to consider.

And so, what happened to the clothing?

We sometimes get a little scared of getting closer to answering key questions because there's an inherent fear amongst Ripperologists that we may uncover something important. In a way, it's never been about solving the case, it's just been about the communal journey that we share...

But ultimately I find that approach frustrating and I personally would like nothing better than asking important questions, uncovering new clues, gathering compelling evidence and then solving the case so I haven't got to waste time any more time and energy on the case.
I'd love to break the 'legend' of JTR and expose him for the pitiful excuse of a human being he was.

So let's break through the BS and ask the important questions... Scapegoat Barnett aside; What happened to the clothes Maria Harvey left and why did the killer burn them?
Prior to moving to Dorset Street, Maria Harvey lived for years in Station Place in Shadwell... the exact location where Emily Smith was attacked a few years later by a man who; if her story is true, was almost certainly the ripper.

Maria Harvey's presence and Barnett's leaving in combination, were the reasons why MJK became a sitting duck for the ripper.

But why?


RD

[richardnunweek]

Hi The Times Mon 12th. The police believed a jacket and Bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained, Explanations please?
Regards Richard.

[Mark J D]

... that washtub ... doesnt seem to be pushed back out of sight, just shoved under the bed...

Hard to be sure from the photo; but might the washtub actually be propping up the bottom corner of the bed?

Mark D.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi The Times Mon 12th. The police believed a jacket and Bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained, Explanations please?
Regards Richard.

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.

[Mark J D]

We sometimes get a little scared of getting closer to answering key questions because there's an inherent fear amongst Ripperologists that we may uncover something important. In a way, it's never been about solving the case, it's just been about the communal journey that we share...

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.