How strange is this

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
All I can go by is the actual words used..that the police thought the crime was committed during daylight, and the velvet jacket , and bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained.
As you quite rightly say..is it possible that they could tell if burnt items were stained?
If the bloodstained items were found in the room, it would suggest that these were on the bed itself, in order to be soiled..and destroyed by the police, because of this, which is hard to believe..?
Mystery's again..
Regards Richard.

[MysterySinger]

And what may also be as strange ...a death occurred in Whitechapel Union Infirmary on 24th May 1889 of one Henry Maxwell aged 52 from pneumonia.

A Henry Maxwell (slightly different birth year) similar location had a father called John who was an absentee from a young age by spending time in prison. I also think that his son Henry may have followed in his footsteps. Links are yet to be established thoroughly.

Could be interesting. But Caroline Maxwell is also an elusive with regard to census information. Has much research been carried out on her?

[MayBea]

I did some research on Caroline Maxwell in conjunction with the search for Joseph Barnett's 'wife', Louisa. I found nothing from other sources or from my own research.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8080&page=3

A Henry Maxwell (slightly different birth year) similar location had a father called John who was an absentee from a young age by spending time in prison.

This Henry Maxwell sounds interesting.

[Wickerman]

There also stated, that the remains of Kelly's velvet jacket, was burnt because it was bloodstained....explanations please?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.
Do you recall where you read that?

The only justification I remember reading from Abberline was that:
"... articles of womans clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light..."

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
Yes The Times Nov 12th,,about the third paragraph down..
Regards Richard.

[Penhalion]

I'm not sure if Abberline (or most people, really) was aware that silk (which is what the velvet would have been made of at this date) is a protein fiber and doesn't burn very well at all. It would be a minimal, smokey sort of fire with a strong tendency to go out. Add to that the dampness of the blood and you have a garment that would make a really ineffective fire. It would be much easier and more effective to just bundle it up and carry it a few streets over and toss it in a bin.

If it was burned it was for some reason other than simple disposal and if it was burned for light, it would have been an abject failure.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
If Kelly's jacket , and Harvey's bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained, and taking in account that Mrs Prater, recalled seeing Mary Kelly the previous evening wearing that outfit, one could speculate one of two scenarios .
That she was wearing both Jacket and Bonnet, when she was initially attacked, and the killer,. did not wish this to be made known, so attempted to disguise this by cutting them up , and placing them on the fire, which clearly must have been alight.
Or the said items, were placed on the bed, and were made bloodstained, and again the killer , for some reason , wanted to hide that...?
It makes no sense for a bloodthirsty maniac, to be so paranoid about the clothing being blood soiled, for no reason..
If Kelly was wearing the same clothing that Prater saw her at 9.pm the 8th, then it is likely that Mrs Cox's story was a fabrication, and no 'Blotchy man existed, for her description of clothing wore by MJk was not the same as she was wearing on going out that evening...
It is not known the clothing Kelly was seen to be wearing by Hutchinson, it is very plausible that she may have been accosted by Mr A, when wearing her best outfit, a man of that apparent influence, would hardly accost a shabbily dressed woman..?
Plenty of red herrings , and false leads in this case, intriguing is it not?
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi
If Kelly's jacket , and Harvey's bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained, and taking in account that Mrs Prater, recalled seeing Mary Kelly the previous evening wearing that outfit, one could speculate one of two scenarios .
That she was wearing both Jacket and Bonnet, when she was initially attacked, and the killer,. did not wish this to be made known, so attempted to disguise this by cutting them up , and placing them on the fire, which clearly must have been alight.

Hi Richard.
In the late Victorian period women were required to cover their heads, especially when out at night alone.
A hatless woman was an indication of a loose woman.

Mrs Prater saw Kelly wearing the hat (presumably the one that belonged to Mrs Harvey) about 9:00 pm Thursday night, but she doesn't say if Kelly was going out or just coming home.

Mrs Cox saw Kelly at 11:45 pm, without the hat.

Hutchinson made no mention of seeing a hat at 2:00 am.

Mrs Kennedy says Kelly was not wearing her hat at 3:00 am.

When Mary was out earlier with Maria Harvey, and later seen by Mrs Prater, she was wearing the hat. My interpretation of this is, that she wore the hat so as to say, "not available". In other words she is on a 'girls-night-out' with her friend.

When Kelly was out later (and seen by Cox, et. al.), she left the hat in her room.
Leaving the hat at home is now her way of saying, "I'm available", she is open for business.

Right or wrong, that is how I read it.

So, as the hat was not found in the room, presumably it was the one where only the rim was found in the grate, which means it could have been damaged long before Kelly was seen by Hutchinson.

Maybe it ended up in the fire even before she met up with Blotchy, and for some other reason unrelated to her death.

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Jon.
Mrs Prater did actually imply, that when she saw Kelly at the bottom of the passage , she was going out wearing the jacket and bonnet,,''She went one way, I went the other she stated..
We do not know that Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly...
We know that Mrs Harvey left the bonnet that day/evening, as she remembers telling Mary,''i shall be leaving my bonnet then''.
This would imply that Mary was intending to dress up that evening, and wear the bonnet, implying she was not available..maybe she had pre arranged date, that did not materialize , and returned home to dress down , to give the signal she was available,? that would explain the difference in Cox'x statement regarding clothing.. and her being accompanied by ''Blotchy''.
As for bonnets being worn to prevent being accosted, it did not prevent Nichols, Eddowes etc from being victims,..
As for the garments being burnt, unrelated to the murder, I can not see sense in that argument, according to the police''Because they were bloodstained''..my question is 'How did they become bloodstained, if they were not worn by the victim , at the time of the attack, or in the immediate vicinity of the bed? ..
Regards Richard.

[Penhalion]

I'm afraid that the bonnet=not on the game/no bonnet=open for business thing doesn't really stand up. It was certainly the usual custom that women covered their heads as it had been for centuries in England but it wasn't a regulation or law. At best, it was a strongly held social convention. I'm pretty sure that at the socio-economic level of these women social conventions were not a top priority. In fact, contrary to your theory, Polly Nichols specifically called attention to her new bonnet as she went out looking for a john thinking that it increased her chances of earning money. Catherine Eddowes was wearing one when she was killed, it is listed in the inventory as still being on her head when she was killed.

[richardnunweek]

Absolutely the bonnet theory does not hold water, if Kelly wore one that night, it was simply to look her best , the clothing description given by Prater, does not match Cox's description, less then three hours later, so one of the two women were not being truthful, or at least mistaken on date..
The jacket and bonnet were burnt, the bloodstained theory held by the police , has to be explained,
Why would these garments incriminate the killer?
Regards Richard,..

[Wickerman]

There was no suggestion that being with or without a bonnet was some regulation or law - whoever said it was?
It was however, a social convention, followed by some women, typically the younger end, but not by others, among the older generations. The fact Nichols (older generation) did not observe this convention does not mean others didn't either.

We can't live by blanket statements. Especially in Kelly's case, it does seem that she had the bonnet available but chose not to wear it on a night that was not exactly pleasant weather. An ideal night for a bonnet, I would think.
So why didn't she?
Either Kelly was observing this convention, or the bonnet was already destroyed.

There is no satisfactory explanation for the burned clothing, regardless what theory is subscribed to.

[Wickerman]

Good morning Jon.
Mrs Prater did actually imply, that when she saw Kelly at the bottom of the passage , she was going out wearing the jacket and bonnet,,''She went one way, I went the other she stated..

Hi Richard.
I agree, it appears that way. I wasn't too sure whether Prater was saying that she was going out, and Kelly was coming home, or they were both going out, just in different directions.
As Prater said:
" I stood down at the bottom of the entry, and she came down." it appears she means Kelly came down the passage, on her way out.

As for the garments being burnt, unrelated to the murder, I can not see sense in that argument, according to the police''Because they were bloodstained''..my question is 'How did they become bloodstained, if they were not worn by the victim , at the time of the attack, or in the immediate vicinity of the bed? ..
Regards Richard.

My caution on that score is, the police cannot know that the clothes were burned because they were stained - how could they possibly know that?

So, either they are guessing, or the police said no such thing, it is just the press offering a reason.

Abberline is quoted as giving the reason, the clothes were burned to give extra light - more satisfactory than "because they were stained". Yet clothing doesn't give off much light, it may even stifle the fire for a while, then flare up for a short time.

It is an anomaly as to why they were burned, but I can't see how any resolution will advance our understanding either way.

[Wickerman]

Hello Richard.

We do not know that Mrs Kennedy saw Kelly...

Agreed, but this is only one of several reports that suggest Kelly went out again.

"Nothwithstanding that no evidence was produced at the coroner's inquiry to show that she left her apartment after one o'clock, at which hour she was heard singing, there is every reason to believe that she came out after that hour. This circumstance will account for the fact that no light was observed in the room after one o'clock, as stated by one of the witnesses at the inquest. The police have received statements from several persons, some of whom reside in Miller's-court, who are prepared to swear that the deceased was out of her house and in Dorset-street between the hours of two and three o'clock on the morning in question."
Morning Advertiser, 14 Nov. 1888.

[Rosella]

Mary Kelly may well have ventured out again but as for witnesses seeing no light in her room, how much light would one penny candle shed? Also there was a coat over one window. Unless passers-by were specifically peering in at Mary's windows it's debatable as to whether they'd even notice one tiny pin-prick of light.