But who does the snowman represent?
~

~
Is the scene a foreshadowing of the hanging threat directed at Jennifer, related to becoming the “gift of the month”? Or does it depict the hanging of Mr. Hoffman as Sir Peter? Or the hanging of another “disappeared” person?

The structure of the gallows as two vertical posts, connected by a crossbar at the top, resembles the gallows that we are shown during the animation of the hanging of Sir Peter, but could that gallows have been used (or threatened to be used) on more than one occasion?

Does the location of the gallows in the freezing room of the airship indicate that the actual place of this gallows in Jennifer’s forgotten past was outside of the orphanage during a time of snow? We know that Jennifer experienced snow during her time at the orphanage because she tells us, in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter, in the foyer, at the umbrella stand:

“We never used umbrellas. On snowy days, we’d go out for snowball fights. On rainy days, we’d go out and play in the rain, and get soaking wet. Every time, Xavier would trip and get himself all muddy and we’d laugh. It was so much fun.”

The freezing compartment has a foyer, and the comment above about snow is made in the foyer of the orphanage mansion… is this a coincidence or is it a clue?

It is perhaps worth noting that the steps under the gallows noose do not lead to a door. Using a map to be sure that I was at the right location, I checked the other side of that freezing compartment wall (there is a corridor on the other side) and there is definitely no door at that location.
~
Thanks, Jay, for providing the high-resolution screen-captures (via emulator).

A friend of mine who is in the process of taking law school exams was telling me that every detail within the set-up of an exam question must be regarded as significant. Nothing should be dismissed as random or irrelevant. Of course this is different from real life. In a real life law case, there are many totally unimportant details to be sifted through. But not so with exam questions. Unlike with real legal problems, every detail of a law school exam question is there by some exam writer’s deliberate design, and one disregards this fact at extreme peril to one’s grade.

I think that the mysteries of Rule of Rose are best regarded as being more like law school exam problems rather than real-life legal case problems. One needs to regard the various details found within the Rule of Rose game as being non-random and non-coincidental. The details of the game should be evaluated as being present by the deliberate design of the game-makers. Ask yourself: Why might the game-makers have chosen to put this particular detail in this particular setting? Think like a writer. Ask yourself how, if you were writing the story, you could use this detail as a plot element. Asking questions like these is, in my opinion, one of the main ways by which I have generated so many plot-theories for this Rule of Rose Mysteries blog. It is a very productive mental exercise. I invite you to try it too.

I also use this approach in evaluating competing theories.
~

~
Let’s evaluate two competing Rule of Rose theories by this approach.

Theory A.
In my blog-post The Mystery of Martha’s Letter, I proposed that the abrupt ending, mid-sentence, of Martha’s letter indicated that something and/or someone had interrupted Martha at that point in the writing of her letter, and that Martha had never returned to finish the letter. Why had she never finished the letter? Because she had been attacked, and, ultimately, killed.

Theory B.
Martha’s letter had actually been fully completed at the time, but some time after that the last page of it had gotten misplaced, and so the letter appears to us to end mid-sentence, but this is really just an artifact of the last page getting lost.

Is there any hard evidence by which to disprove either theory? Perhaps not.

Is there any reason, then, to prefer one theory over the other? I think so.

Theory B renders the author’s choice, to end Martha’s letter mid-sentence, essentially meaningless. It becomes just a random occurrence, as might happen in real life.

Theory A treats the “detail” of the mid-sentence break-off of Martha’s letter as being profoundly meaningful. As being the keystone of a broader theory of Martha’s murder. This detail thereby becomes the sort of clever plot device that one might applaud an author for creating. And for this reason I believe that Theory A should be strongly favored over Theory B. In fact, I don’t give theory B any credence at all.

I think we should, as a general rule, favor RoR theories that reasonably ascribe significance and meaning to details, over theories that dismiss those details as being essentially insignificant and meaningless. To me, this is just a matter of giving the game-makers respect as good writers.

I think that, in theorizing about its mysteries, Rule of Rose should not be regarded as being like real-life in the sense of being full of random and coincidental elements. I think that we are much better served by thinking of Rule of Rose as a designed work of art, in which, in order to understand it, we must seek that deliberate design by which it is shaped.

When Jennifer finds Martha’s hat in that chapter, we see the text:

The hat worn by Martha, who was accused of being a witch.

And later in the “Unlucky Clover Field” chapter of Rule of Rose, when Jennifer finds a dirty rag, the voice of Martha (her invisible ghost?) says:

I was a mighty witch. Yet now, I am but a powerless wretch. Rubbish and dust.

It isn’t at all clear why Martha should be depicted as a witch in the Rule of Rose game. Could it be that we are meant to associate Martha, in some manner, with the witch of “The Little Mermaid” fairytale? And if so, what might that association be meant to tell us about what happened in the orphanage during Jennifer’s forgotten past?

The witch of “The Little Princess” fairytale is the one who facilitated the getting together of the mermaid and the prince. The witch did so by providing a potion which removed the mermaid’s tail and gave her legs.

The price that the witch demanded for her help was the tongue of the mermaid.

Could this be construed as a suggestion that Martha somehow facilitated the sexual relationship between Clara and Mr. Hoffman? And that Martha played a role in keeping Clara quiet about it?

Jennifer tells us, in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter of Rule of Rose:

“Clara was a quiet person. To me, she looked like just another student at the orphanage…except when she spoke to Mr. Hoffman or Martha. Then, she looked scary.

I have questioned whether the word “scary”, above, is a proper translation from the Japanese. Clara has been called the “Frightened Princess”, so perhaps “scared” is the word that should have been used. If so, why was Martha included with Mr. Hoffman as one that contributed to Clara’s fear?

Amanda wrote in her diary:

I tattled on Mr. Hoffman as they told me to do, but I failed again.

The above is a statement that many have argued is a mistranslation, saying that it should read “tattled to Mr. Hoffman (about Jennifer)”. But what if the statement is correctly translated, and Amanda meant that she had gone to Martha and told her about Mr. Hoffman doing naughty things with Clara? And that Martha wouldn’t act on this information. Is that a possibility?

~
Click on this link for the text of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Little Mermaid”.

Looking at the paring knife in the inventory, the knife doesn’t look bloody. But if one equips the paring knife, and looks at it as Jennifer carries it in her hand, the knife definitely can be seen to be colored dark red over the tip half of its blade. This can be seen, it should be emphasized, long before Jennifer has an opportunity to use the paring knife as a weapon against imps.

Should this be regarded as a clue?

~

The “Unlucky Clover Field” chapter seems to have Martha’s death as a theme:

We see Martha attacked.  We see Martha looking very dead.  And we encounter Martha’s invisible ghost.

Could it be that part of the assault on Martha, or the coup de grâce that finished her off, included stabbing with the paring knife?

And is there some dark meaning to be found in the fact that the knife only looks bloody when Jennifer holds it in her hand?

The Cell of Bliss Mystery (part 1)
The Cell of Bliss Mystery (part 2)

By this theory, the dolls on the left side of the table represent Jennifer, Diana, Eleanor, Meg, and Amanda during the event shown to us at the end of “The Little Princess” chapter of Rule of Rose wherein Jennifer has water poured on her and goes into a coffin.

I think that the dolls on the table, because we see them depicted in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter when Jennifer’s memory has returned to her in a clear manner, should be something that actually existed during Jennifer’s forgotten past. Which means that, in my opinion, the water pouring incident in which Jennifer went into a coffin should be more than just a dream-event, it should also be something that occurred in some fashion during her forgotten past. My explanation for the context of this occurrence during Jennifer’s forgotten past is found in my blog-post:

The Mystery of Jennifer in the Coffin

By my theory, the dolls on the right side of the table represent a threat to Jennifer that she will be hanged if she doesn’t do something that is demanded of her by the Aristocrats.

During “The Funeral” chapter, we see a “gift of the month” warrant for Jennifer which shows her being hanged by the neck. The dolls on the right side of the table, showing a figure hanged by the neck, surrounded by “spooky things”, is—according to my theory—a depiction of the threat of that.

But could it be that, like the dolls on the left side of the table, the dolls on the right side of the table depict an event that actually occurred during Jennifer’s forgotten past?

Obviously, Jennifer herself was not hanged by the neck during her forgotten past, so, if it is not Jennifer that is shown hanging, who could it be?

We have recently been discussing the matter of whether or not Hoffman was hanged. See my blog-posts:

Was Mr. Hoffman Hanged? (Part 1)
Was Mr. Hoffman Hanged? (Part 2)

But let’s open up the discussion to include Martha and Clara as well. Could all of them have hanged?

This YouTube video shows us dead Martha.  If you watch at time 15-18 seconds, you will see that Martha’s neck appears to be broken.  The sight of dead Martha at 35-40 seconds seems to show that her legs must be broken at the hip (or something like that) for her to be folded up as she is.  How did Martha go from being alive and bagged (as we see her in Clara’s cabin of the airship during the “Bird of Happiness” chapter) to having a broken neck and legs?  Could she have dropped from a height?

Could Martha have dropped from a height after being hanged?  I see no rope marks on her neck, but might it be that there would not be rope marks if she was still bagged when she was hanged by the neck? Could the flimsy scaffold at the top of the stairs (see my blog-post The Gallows at the Top of the Stairs) have given way, dropping Martha hard to the floor, but still breaking her neck (as well as her legs)?

We see Clara, as the Mermaid/Clara-boss, hung, but not by the neck. She hangs upside down. But she still hangs.

Sir Peter is shown hanging from a gallows in the animation which opens the “Sir Peter” chapter. To read about the possibility that Sir Peter represents Hoffman (at least at times) see my blog-posts:

“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 1)
Clara and Hoffman: Mermaid and Hare?
“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 2)

In the “Once Upon A Time” chapter, we can get our best look at the doll hanged-by-the-neck in the Cell of Bliss. Unfortunately this chapter is not in color.

The hanged doll appears to have squiggles on its torso. I favor an interpretation of these squiggles as red crayon markings. This is consistent with an identification of the doll as Jennifer, for we have seen Jennifer marked with red crayon in “The Funeral” chapter. But it could also be consistent with an identification of the doll as Martha, who was marked with red crayon while bagged. At the end of the “Sir Peter” storybook, we are told that he was “bagged”. If this refers to Mr. Hoffman, might not he also have been scribbled on in red while bagged?

It is hard to make out what, if anything, is on top of the head of the hanged doll. Can anybody make it out? It could help with an identification of the identity of the doll.

Does the hanged doll wear glasses (or have glasses drawn on it)? I’m not sure. What do you think? This could also help to identify the doll.

Initially I identified the hanged doll as representing Jennifer because of (a) the squiggles (red crayon scribbles) and (b) I had accepted TheSinnerChrono’s ( see: Rule of Rose Game Script, by TheSinnerChrono) identification of the scene as “Horrible Imp dolls surrounding teddy bear”. A teddy bear would be Joshua-the-bear, and I interpreted this as representing Jennifer. I am far from confident now, however, that the hanged doll is a teddy bear. What do you think?

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I think that I have found some strong evidence against the theory that the forest scene at the end of the “Sir Peter” chapter of Rule of Rose might actually be the occasion of the hanging of Mr. Hoffman (see Part 1 of this series of blog-posts, and the comments there, for discussion of that theory). This evidence also argues against the “Mondays pea…etc.” chant being about Hoffman, Martha, or Clara.

At the end of that final scene, in the forest, of the “Sir Peter” chapter, Jennifer sticks a maggoty dead rat in Amanda’s face.

In Amanda’s diary, the following entry was made:

Sunday, June 1

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Those awful things got into my mouth!
She’ll be sorry the next chance I get.
But why me again?
What have I done?
(Working Class Luggage, “Rag Princess Sews”, Amanda’s Diary)

If the statement, “Those awful things got into my mouth!”, can be safely assumed to be a reference to the maggots getting into Amanda’s mouth when Jennifer thrust the maggoty dead rat into Amanda’s face, then we must date the forest scene to June 1, which is long before the time when Hoffman, Martha, and Clara disappeared (they were all present in the orphanage as late as November).

It seems to me that, unless we claim that two separate incidences were somehow mixed together in Jennifer’s memory (or we claim that the maggots were not the “awful things” that got into Amanda’s mouth), we must dismiss the idea that this scene, and the “Monday’s pea… etc.” chant, relate to the disappearances of Hoffman, Martha, and Clara.  A pity, as I had a shocking theory, to explain the plural peas in the chant after Thursday, that I was working on, but which totally goes down in flames with the June 1 date for this scene.

To view the forest scene, watch this YouTube video:  forest ceremony

~

(to be continued)

(Jennifer:) “…the last page is particularly interesting… It’s Mr. Hoffman’s last entry before he disappeared.”

11 November 1930

I’m leaving the orphanage.
Clara’s here to look after things, and the children are quickly growing up.
I’ve done right and fulfilled my duty.
…Bloody hell!
All the trouble started when that wretched child arrived…
I’ve done nothing to deserve this!”
(Headmaster’s Room, Hoffman’s diary, “Once Upon a Time”)

(Jennifer:) “…That’s the end of the diary. We never saw Mr. Hoffman again.”

Isn’t this proof that Mr. Hoffman left on his own? And doesn’t Jennifer even tell us in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter that Mr. Hoffman, Martha, and Clara “left”?

Actually Jennifer never tells us that they “left”, as is sometimes claimed. She only tells us, as above, that Mr. Hoffman “disappeared”, and Martha and Clara “soon followed”:

Headmaster’s Closet:

–At the shelf that has shoes:

(Jennifer:) “That day, Mr. Hoffman disappeared, like he was running away from something. He had tried too hard to be someone he wasn’t. The expectations were too much for him… and he wanted to escape those restrictions. However, children and adults live in the same world, and we must both play by society’s rules.”

and

Entrance-way:

–At the portrait of Hoffman:

(Jennifer:) “One day, Mr. Hoffman suddenly disappeared. Clara and Miss Martha soon followed, leaving me and the other orphans alone.”

But doesn’t this still seem to indicate that Mr. Hoffman left on his own, rather than was murdered?

If this was all that we had to go by, I would be inclined to think so. But there are some intriguing other clues that relate to Mr. Hoffman’s “disappearance”.

There is, for example, the matter of Mr. Hoffman’s possessions, apparently left behind unpacked. And there is a suitcase interestingly placed in his room by his desk.  See my blog-posts:

Did Hoffman “Disappear” Without His Possessions Disappearing With Him? (Part 1)
Did Hoffman “Disappear” Without His Possessions Disappearing With Him? (Part 2)
Did Hoffman “Disappear” Without His Possessions Disappearing With Him? (Part 3)
See-all Walkthrough, With Commentary: “The Little Princess” Chapter (Part 15): Reception Room: Dish Cupboard
See-all Walkthrough, With Commentary: “The Little Princess” Chapter (Part 22): Headmaster’s Closet, Headmaster’s Room, and an Interesting Suitcase

And there is also the possibility that the “Sir Peter” storybook, and animation (at the beginning of the “Sir Peter” chapter of the game), tell us about what happened to Mr. Hoffman.

See my blog-posts:

“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 1)
Clara and Hoffman: Mermaid and Hare?
“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 2)

To view the animation, showing Sir Peter hanged, watch the very beginning of the YouTube video linked to here: Sir Peter hangs.

~

Lost Orphan introduced the following interesting speculations about a hanged Hoffman (in a comment to my blog-post Did the Orphans Think That the Men’s Lavatory Was Haunted By Mr. Hoffman’s Ghost?:

What if the cutscene that we see at the end of the “Sir Peter” chapter and the song that the orphans are chanting as they view the object hanging from the tree represent the end of Hoffman? Does the bag that we see represent his body only replaced with a bag to satisfy a sensitive psyche. I think that it does.

If we continue with the theory that “One-Horned Peter” represents Hoffman (I think the one-horn represents his top hat) then I think that the chant finally makes sense. Tuesdays line says “almost made it free” and Wednesdays says “didn’t think to flee” and I think that this truly DOES represent what happened.
Hoffman at first made plans to leave the orphanage therefore nearly “made it free”, but was intercepted by the orphans and “didn’t think to flee” because they were only children. They beat him senseless (bloody) and stuffed him into a bag to drag him to the place where he was hung. No one would have paid much mind to a group of children with a bag. Especially since the nearest neighbor was slightly unhinged anyhow. I don’t think that he was buried in the courtyard, but perhaps in some other location (Stray Dog’s Garden?) under Joshua’s direction.

As he hung there he was a “sight to see”. Perhaps Jennifer did witness this scene, but beacuse of her “new” status and the fact that she was not a member of the RCA she wasn’t permitted to get very close. Perhaps Amanda played a part in leading Hoffman to his demise by her tattling. She plays a major part in the chapter by her insistence on helping Jennifer in her presentation of the rabbit to the RCA. When she failed and Jennifer succeeded her usefulness was deminished.

I do admit that I have a problem with Jennifer leading someone to his death, but we do not know her mental state at the time.

For alternatives to the meaning of the horn of “one-horned Peter” see my comment #11 for Did the Orphans Think That the Men’s Lavatory Was Haunted By Mr. Hoffman’s Ghost?. Also related, see my blog-post: One-horned Peter, the Miraj.

~

In the “Once Upon A Time” chapter of Rule of Rose, Jennifer tells us the following story at the blocked off toilet stall in the Men’s Lavatory:

Once, Susan started a rumor about voices coming from this room at night… It turned out it was only the door creaking in the wind, but one night, sounds came from the room even with the windows shut. Susan jumped out of her bed and screamed. It was really just a prank by Nicholas and Xavier. From then on, the room was believed to be haunted and was considered off limits.

One question that comes to my mind is one of translation. Does “room” refer to the entire lavatory (as would be expected of normal English usage) or does “room” refer to the blocked off toilet stall?

In either case, I wonder if we are missing something if we just assume that this little story of Jennifer’s only exists to give us an innocent “slice of life” from the orphanage.

Jennifer, herself, sees a ghost in the course of the game. She sees Martha’s ghost in Clara’s cabin. And Clara’s cabin is also the location where Jennifer sees Martha alive, but bound and bagged. I suggested previously that Martha died at the location in the orphanage represented as Clara’s cabin in the airship and that’s why Jennifer sees her ghost there. See The Mysteries of Clara’s Cabin (Part 2): Martha’s Death.

Could it be that the orphans are quick to think that the Men’s Lavatory is haunted because they think that Hoffman died (or something happened that led to his death) there?

In a previous blog-post, I suggested that Thomas’s doodlings on Hoffman’s portrait in the Reception Room contained a threat that Stray Dog would “get” Hoffman.  See my See-all Walkthrough, With Commentary: “The Little Princess” Chapter (Part 14): Reception Room: Stray Dog Gobbles Hoffman In Hoffman’s Portrait.

I have also, in previous blog-posts suggested that the “Sir Peter” storybook tells a story that is, at least in part, about Mr. Hoffman. See:

“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 1)
Clara and Hoffman: Mermaid and Hare?
“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 2)

In the “Sir Peter” storybook we see a drawing of Stray Dog at a door with a sink beside it (you can also see this drawing on page 20 of the game handbook). I suggest that the sink represents the location as being that of a lavatory. In the storybook, Sir Peter is running, looking for a toilet, and is running toward Stray Dog (who is apparently at a lavatory). Could part of the message of the storybook be that Stray Dog “got” Hoffman in a lavatory? And, if so, wouldn’t the lavatory, that Mr. Hoffman would be expected to use, be the Men’s Lavatory?

In Jennifer’s little story of the Men’s Lavatory (in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter), Susan is the one most worried about the sounds she hears. Is it a coincidence that Susan was working with Meg to investigate Stray Dog? In Meg’s Notebook, Meg wrote:

Stray Dog investigation:

1F Restroom

Gather notes from rumors scribbled on walls: assigned to Susan.

Did the orphans know, or have reason to suspect, that something happened to Mr. Hoffman in the Men’s Lavatory? Is this why the Lavatory (or lavatory stall) was made off-limits and the fear of haunting took hold?

~

Thanks to Passerby for the snapshot of the “Sir Peter” storybook used to illustrate this blog-post.

Inside Meg’s notebook is also a torn page of which only the heading remains: “Secrets of the Land of…”

What might have been written on that page?

An idea I have about the possible contents of that missing page is that the page might have functioned sort of like a GM’s, or player’s, notes in a role-playing game. The orphans pretended that they were imps when they wore bags on their heads, so perhaps the notes were supposed to help them in the role.

The word “findings”, however, suggests that the information on that page was not from the imaginations of the orphans but rather was somehow found by Meg’s research. Meg might have researched the subject of imps from books in the library, but there were other possible sources for Meg’s information about imps: Hoffman and Martha.

~

Hoffman wrote in his diary:

November 1930

The children are spreading rumors about a killer named “Stray Dog.”
They say, “He comes at dusk under the cover of darkness and devours the children he kidnaps.”
Disturbingly the rumors seem to be motivated by the recent disappearances that have the public in a panic.
However, I find that the rumors I use to get the children to do their cleaning are working splendidly.
The orphanage is spotless.
I’m such a clever teacher.
(Headmaster’s Room, Hoffman’s diary, “The Funeral”)

So Hoffman would have been a source of information, for the orphans, about the imps. Meg might have questioned the other orphans about what stories Hoffman told about imps, and then collected information from those stories on that page in her notebook.

But I don’t think that Hoffman originated the imps legends at the orphanage. Hoffman claims only to have “used” rumors, not to have invented the rumors.

Earlier, in March of 1930, Hoffman thinks those rumors are “bizarre”. That would NOT be the case if he had invented them himself.

“March 2, 1930

Recently, the children have been engaging in odd activities and spreading disturbing rumors—rumors about creatures that come after children who don’t clean up and stray dogs that kidnap small tots… It’s all very bizarre.”

(“The Little Princess”, Headmaster’s room, desk, Hoffman’s diary)

(“Once Upon a Time”, Headmaster’s room, desk, Hoffman’s diary)

That isn’t the way, it seems to me, that Hoffman would write about rumors that he himself invented.

I suspect that Martha may have been the one to have invented the rumors, since she also had a motive to want the children to clean, and since Hoffman seems not to have invented the rumors himself. So Meg might also have questioned the other orphans about what stories Martha told about imps, and then collected information from those stories on that page in her notebook.

Perhaps Martha’s claim to have knowledge of (and even control of?) imps was the reason that the orphans accused Martha of being a witch.

~

I also had an idea about where the imps might have been thought, by the orphans, to come from: the well by the shed where Jennifer kept Brown. The air coming up from the well might have suggested to the orphans that there was an underground world that could be reached by the well. Perhaps they thought that the imps came from underground via the well. Perhaps Martha or Hoffman told the orphans that.

The text “It’s a rusted well. Cold air flows from inside it…” only comes in “The Little Princess” chapter, not the “Once Upon A Time” chapter. I’ve wondered if there might be a suggestion in this that Jennifer closed off the passage to the land of the imps by achieving the “good ending” (i.e. reaching the “Once Upon A Time” chapter). But I would like this interpretation better if there had been a text in the “Once Upon a Time” saying that the cold air no longer flowed from the well, rather than there just being a lack of text at the well when one presses “x”.

The following is, admittedly, a very speculative answer, but it IS one based on a story element of the game: Martha’s ghost.

Because of the following story, told by Jennifer, in the Men’s Lavatory, during the “Once Upon A Time” chapter of Rule of Rose, we know that the orphans believed in, and feared, ghosts:

Once, Susan started a rumor about voices coming from this room at night… It turned out it was only the door creaking in the wind, but one night, sounds came from the room even with the windows shut. Susan jumped out of her bed and screamed. It was really just a prank by Nicholas and Xavier. From then on, the room was believed to be haunted and was considered off limits.

We also know that Jennifer encountered the voice of Martha’s ghost, in Clara’s cabin, during the “Unlucky Clover Field” chapter.

Could it be that nobody else wanted to take over Clara’s bedroom (the Filth Room), after Clara disappeared, because there was a fear that it might be haunted?

If Martha was murdered there, the Filth Room might have been feared to be haunted.

If Clara died, under any circumstances, it might have been feared that the Filth Room, having been her bedroom, might be haunted.

And if Jennifer ever told the other orphans that she had encountered Martha’s ghost there, then certainly the other orphans (if they believed Jennifer) would have thought that the Filth Room was haunted. Indeed, I wonder if Jennifer could have, with an intention of “inheriting” Clara’s bedroom, concocted a story about encountering Martha’s ghost there!

At any rate, Jennifer might have figured that she would have an easier time taking care of Brown if she wasn’t under the constant observation that would accompany living in the dormitory, and was therefore willing to risk encounters with Martha’s ghost if living in the Filth Room would benefit Brown.